Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017

Home

December 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 23 Zoning Bulletin Subsequently, Michael DiMattio, Eileen Tighe, Drew Carlin, and Nadia Carlin (the "Objectors") challenged the validity of the Ordinance. Among other things, the Objectors argued that the rezoning of the Property constituted illegal "spot zoning." Spot zoning is "a signaling out of one lot or a small area for different treat- ment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit or detriment of the owner of that lot." Spot zoning is unconstitutional and invalid. The Township's Zoning Hearing Board ("ZHB") determined that the rezon- ing was not improper spot zoning. The Objectors appealed. The trial court found that, in light of the characteristics of the Property and the surrounding area, the differentiation in zoning classification between the original R-1 zoning district and the change to R-2 was not so significant as to exceed the Supervisors' power to enact a zoning change. In the trial court's as- sessment, then, the Objectors failed to establish that the Ordinance affecting the zoning change constituted spot zoning. The Objectors again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the Township's rezon- ing of the Property was not improper spot zoning. In so holding, the court explained that "[t]he most determinative factor in an analysis of spot zoning is whether the parcel in question is being treated unjustifiably different from similar surrounding land, thus creating an `island' having no relevant differences from its neighbors." Further, explained the court, "[t]o establish improper spot zoning, the challenger must prove that the provisions at issue are arbitrary and unreasonable and have no relation to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare." Looking at the evidence and facts here, the court found that the Objectors failed to satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the Property was indistin- guishable in character from the land immediately surrounding it. The court found that the land surrounding the Property included: an interstate to the east; a municipal golf course to the north and west; and property in another town- ship to the south. The court found that the only characteristic of the subject property that the Objectors addressed was the size of the property, which they asserted was similar to other tracts in the area, and concerns regarding traffic. Since the Objectors failed to show differential zoning treatment of adjoin- ing tracts that were characteristically similar, the court concluded that the Objectors did not demonstrate that the rezoning of the Property reflected improper spot zoning. See also: Schubach v. Zoning Bd. of Adjusttnent (Philadelphia), 440 Pa. 249, 270 A.2d 397 (1970). See also: In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates, 576 Pa. 115, 838 A.2d 718 (2003). Case Note: 6 ©2016 Thomson Reuters