Ordinance limitation on number of lots that can be subdivided from property was not unconstitutional.
Penn St., L.P. v. East Lampeter Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 84 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).
Applicant owned a 16.11-acre tract of land located in the Township's Rural Zoning District. Applicant intended to subdivide the property and develop single-family homes on 54 parcels. Applicant filed a challenge to the Zoning Ordinance both arguing that the property was reverse spot zoned and arguing that a provision limiting development of properties between ten and twenty-five acres to one additional lot was unconstitutional.
On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held that Applicant failed to establish reverse spot zoning and that it was not enough that Applicant's rurally zoned property existed as a peninsula within commercially zoned properties and the Township's Urban Growth Boundary that was designated for development. As to the other claim, the Township was authorized to restrict development and subdivision of lots of that size in utilizing its police powers, consistent with its intent to preserve prime agriculture and farmland.
This site is designed to provide summary review of selected Pennsylvania and Federal Court decisions related to land use and land use controls. The information contained herein, although produced by professionals, is not intended to render any legal service. Nor should the materials herein be utilized as a substitute for professional services. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the service of an attorney or other professional should be sought. DCED makes no representations, warranties or guarantees as to the accuracy, completeness or suitability of the information provided herein.
Back to Top