Laserfiche WebLink
Page 4 -- April 25, 2005 <br /> <br /> Rezoning-- Developer claims no land left for mobile home parks <br /> Argues township needs to change zoning <br /> Citation: Crystal Forest Associates LP v. Buckingham Township Supervisors, <br /> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. ]i70 C,D. 2004 (2005) <br /> <br /> PENNSYLVAtXlIA (03/16/05) -- McKee owned a large mobile home park located <br /> in the townsh/p's only zoning district allowing mobile homes. <br /> McKee wanted to expand the mobile home park. However, the township <br />refused to rezone any property to provide a place for McKee to do so. <br /> McKee sued, arguing the township's zoning ordinance did not provide for <br />its fair share of land on which mobile home parks could be developed and there <br />was no available land left t° develop mobile home parks within the township. <br />The court ruled in his favor. <br /> The township appealed, arguing it could not be forced to rezone township <br />property for someone's particular business needs. <br />DE C/SION: Reversed. <br /> The ordinance was proper. <br /> The ordinance was a classic example of the township choosing to impose <br />certain standards and densities to encourage the preservation of large amounts <br />of open space. Thus, the amount of space for mobile home parks was limited. <br /> While a township had to provide for al/reasonable uses in its zoning scheme, <br />it did not have to zone-for every business model. In other words, if a township <br />provided for a use in one zoning district, a township did not need to zone spec/.fi- <br />cally to allow the same use with the same restrictions in other zoning districts. <br /> Additionally, to allow open ground in a township to be used for any pur- <br />pose whatsoever solely because little or no undeveloped land remained in <br />areas properly zoned for that purpose would be against the sound planning <br />that was the rationale for all zoning.. <br />see also: C&M Developers [nc. v. Bedminster Township Zoning Hea)ing Board, <br />820 A.2d 143 (2002). <br />see also: Montgomery Crossing Associates v. ToWnship of Lower Gwynedd, <br />758 A.2d 285 (2000). <br /> <br />Taking -- Land development frozen for 20 months <br />During this time, two local governments settle boundary dispute <br />Citation: Condemnation by the Municipality of Penn Hills, Commonwealth <br />Court of Pennsylvania, No. 2117 C.D. 2004 (2005) <br /> <br />PENNSYLVANIA (03/11/05) -- D'Andrea owned a piece of property located in <br />both the municipality of Penn Hills and the township of Wilkins. The portion in <br />Penn Hills was zoned residential, and the portion in W'dkins was zoned commercial. <br /> D' Andrea wanted to build a commercial office building. He asked Penn Hills <br />to rezone the residential part of hi8 property. It refused to do so. <br /> <br /> © 2005 Quinlan Pui21ist~ing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br />116 <br /> <br /> <br />