Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

Page 4 -- July 10, 2002 land in Upper Merion Township. The Hankin Family Partnership legally owned the property.. The property had been used for a private golf course since the 1920s and had been zoned for ag-ricultural use since 1953, when the district was created. W'nen created, the ori~naI agricultural district comphsed over 3,000 acres, but since that time, much of the su~ounding area was rezoned for various uses, including commercial, administrative and research, and suburban metropoli- tan. The proper~y, unchanged since 1953, was the fzf~ largest parcel in. the township, was much larger than other surrounding parcels, and was bounded by roads on all sides. - In 1997, Realen challenged the validity of the agricultural zoning ordi- nance providing golf courses was one of numerous uses permit-ted by special exception, in addition to several' other uses of right and conditional uses. Realen, noting the parcels surrounding the property had been rezoned for different uses and had rendered the property an island, argued the ordinance constituted un- 'lawful spot zoning and was arbitrary, irrational, and unlawS.d special legislation. The tow'nship's board of suiServisors opposed Realen's challenge, and the township's zoning hearing board held several hearings on the matter. In Au: gust 1999, rte board issued a 50-page opinion On the matter, in which ir made detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law, ultimately denying Realen's challenge. Tae board found the ordnance' allowed various reasonable and legitimate uses of the property; the zoning reflected consideration of public health, safety, and morals; and the zoning classifications were not arbitrary, irrational, unlaw- fui spot zoning, or spec/al leg-/slation. Realen appealed, and the lower court affn-med. Realen appealed the court's decision. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's denial of Realen's challenge was aa=f'muaed. Zoning ordinances were presumed to be valid, and Realen was unable to meet the reaW burden of overcoming this presumption by showing the ordi- nance was arbitrary and unreasonable and had no relation to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. The board made numerous findings of fact in its long decision, citing spe- cific evidence supporting 'each f_mding. The caliber and credibility of witnesses were to be determined by the board, and its findings in that regard were not 'to be questioned by the court. In making its decision, the board found the property could be developed into one of the many uses specirSedlin the ordinance, which'did nor unreason- ably restrict Realen. The board also rejected Reaten's contention the zoning, of the property was discriminatory, spot zoning, because the property in question was unique and d~srmgmshaole from neighbonng properties. It was much larger than. surround- lng parceis and was bounded by 'roadways. The a,m-icultural zoning of the