|

SPOT ZONING: Determined by totality of circumstances. Size
of rezoned tract and inconsistency with comprehensive plan as
criteria for claim of spot zoning.
Baker v. Chartiers Township Zoning Hearing Board; 677
A2d 1274 (1996)
Note: Distinguished by Lower Southampton Twp. v. Dixon, 756 A.2d 147 Claims of "spot" zoning are raised most often when
a "small" tract of land is zoned differently from surrounding
land. While the size of the parcel in question is relevant it
is not dispositive of the issue. In this case the Commonwealth
Court found that a 221 acre tract rezoned from agricultural to
industrial constituted spot zoning.
The Court noted that the Board did not submit the rezoning amendment
to the County Planning Commission as is required under MPC 303(b).
While acknowledging that such a failure invalidated the rezoning
per se, the Court held that such an irregularity in procedure
could be considered along with other factors in determining whether
the rezoning was arbitrary and unjustifiably discriminatory.
The Court also noted that while not required, the absence of
any expert witness to discuss the environmental concerns evident
in this case supports the "arbitrary" argument raised
by the objectors. Inconsistency with the comprehensive plan was
also a factor in the Courts decision to overturn the rezoning
(despite the provisions of MPC 303(c)) which does not require
(emphasis added) rejection for failure to be consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
In toto, the Court found the procedure used by the Township in
adopting the rezoning; the speed; the lack of expert testimony;
the failure to comply with required Planning Commission review
requirements of the MPC; and the "peninsula" effect
caused by the rezoning, to conclusively support the argument that
spot zoning had occurred.
The Court used the earlier decision in Township of Plymouth
v. County of Montgomery, 109 Pa. Comwlth 200, 531 A2d 49 (1987)
and others to generally define spot zoning as "zoning provisions
adopted to control the use of a specified area of land without
regard to the relationship of those land use controls to the overall
plan and the general welfare of the community."
DISCLAIMER:
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
|