Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 11 Eventually, the Township's Board of Supervisors (the "Board") denied GEI's application. The Board determined that GEI's substantive validity challenge to the rezoning of the Property lacked merit. The Board concluded that GEI had not met its burden of showing that the OS zoning designation of the Property was "unreasonable, arbitrary or not substan- tially related to the Township's police power interest the Ordinance serve[d]." The Board concluded that preserving the Property as open space under an OS zoning designation was "compatible with the Township's comprehensive plan and [was] in accordance with the previous golf course cluster development approvals that GEI received prior to the 2006 rezoning." The Board also rejected GEI's argument that the OS zoning classification of the Property was "arbitrary and irrational." GEI appealed to the trial court, which affirmed the Board's decision. GEI again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of trial court affirmed. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania agreed with the trial court and the Board that GEI "did not meet its heavy burden of demonstrating that the Property was [invalidly] spot zoned." The court found that the Property was not an undeveloped parcel in a sea of surrounding development. Rather, much of the surrounding property was forest, agriculture, or open space. Thus, the court found that the rezoning of the OS district was not intended to "freeze" one parcel in order to serve the public interest of "green space." Furthermore, the court found that the OS zoning district was "consistent with and complimentary to the RG district that it borders," and that the two districts shared several overlapping uses. The court also concluded that the rezoning of the Property as OS was "con- sistent with the Township's comprehensive plan." The court also rejected GEI's argument that the rezoning of the Prop- erty was arbitrary and irrational. The court concluded that the rezoning was "not arbitrary or irrational because [the] rezoning was in accordance with the Township's comprehensive plan, which was the result of a lengthy, considered process, involving input from professionals and residents." Here, the court concluded that the comprehensive plan "provided a reason- able justification for including the Property as part of the [OS] District, including the need of the community for open space and recreational areas within the township and concerns regarding road access to the Property. Furthermore, the OS zoning designation was consistent with the condi- tional use approvals incorporating the Property in the golf course cluster developments that GEI obtained under the Ordinance prior to the 2006 amendments." Accordingly, the court affirmed the conclusion that the Board did not abuse its discretion or commit an error of law in rejecting GEI's substan- tive validity challenge to the Ordinance. In light of that determination, the court did not address GEI's proposed curative amendment to the Ordinance or the site -specific plans that GEI submitted with its application. See also: In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates, 576 Pa. 115, 838 A.2d 718 (2003). © 2017 Thomson Reuters