|
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 |
