Penn St., L.P. v. East Lampeter Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 84 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014).

Ordinance limitation on number of lots that can be subdivided from property was not unconstitutional.
Case Details:

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.

No liability is assumed with respect to the use of information contained in this website. Laws may be amended or court rulings made that could affect a particular procedure, issue, or interpretation. The Department of Community & Economic Development assumes no responsibility for errors and omissions nor any liability for damages resulting from the use of information contained herin. Please contact your local solicitor for legal advice.