Atherton Development Co. v. Township of Ferguson
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 516
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Atherton filed a validity challenge to Ferguson Township Zoning Map seeking reclassification of a portion of its land from R-3 to commercial on reverse spot zoning theory.
- Township conducted two hearings, heard Atherton's land manager and surveyor; Township presented planning, zoning, and traffic testimony.
- Supervisors rejected Atherton's challenge, finding the subject parcel is not an island, can be developed under current R-3 zoning, and lacks evidence of economic detriment or improper freezing of development.
- Property at issue is about 5 acres R-3 and 0.49 acres C; adjacent lands include commercial zones in Patton and Ferguson Townships, with West Aaron Drive and Martin Street forming boundaries.
- Trial court affirmed without adding evidence; Atherton appealed to Commonwealth Court.
- Issue-limiting review follows, focusing on spot/reverse spot zoning, economic diminution proof, fair proceeding, and plan-consistency.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the zoning constitutes reverse spot zoning | Atherton contends three-sided commercial surroundings create an island; map changes created reverse spot zoning. | Supervisors properly distinguished the parcel; not an island; R-3 is a logical transitional use and not arbitrary. | Reverse spot zoning rejected; no unjustified disparate treatment. |
| Proof of economic diminution | Atherton need not prove exact diminution; testimony of economic infeasibility suffices. | Specific economic data or appraisal required to show discriminatory result. | Trial court and Supervisors did not err in requiring specific economic data; no proven economic loss. |
| Fairness of the proceeding | Board bias and quasi-judicial process concerns taint due process; lack of independence. | MPC framework followed; planning commissions advisory; no evidence of actual bias by decision-makers. | Proceeding found fair; no due process violation. |
| Comprehensive plan inconsistency | Zoning inconsistent with comprehensive plan; burden shifts to justify inconsistency. | Inconsistency with a plan alone cannot sustain a validity challenge; planning guidance is advisory. | Inconsistency with comprehensive plan alone does not prevail; challenge failed on merits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Realen Valley Forge Greenes Assocs. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 576 Pa. 115 (Pa. 2003) (reverse spot zoning framework and equal protection considerations)
- Guentter v. Montgomery Cnty., Borough of Lansdale, 21 Pa.Cmwlth. 287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1975) (rejection of reverse spot zoning where not sufficiently justified)
- LHT Assocs. v. Twp. of Hampton, 809 A.2d 1072 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (reverse spot zoning considerations in split zoning contexts)
- Briar Meadows Dev., Inc. v. S. Centre Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 2 A.3d 1303 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (rejects reverse spot zoning where no surrounding rezonings create island)
- Taylor v. Haverford Twp., 299 Pa. 402 (Pa. 1930) (triangular lot not properly zoned; primary commercial vicinity considerations)
- C.L. Assocs. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Montgomery Twp., 51 Pa.Cmwlth. 627 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (island/peninsula concepts in spot zoning discussions)
- O'Malia v. Council of Twp. of Wilkes-Barre, 38 Pa.Cmwlth. 121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (historic reverse spot zoning discussions)
- Bishop Nursing Home, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd. of Middletown Twp., 162 Pa.Cmwlth. 118 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (illustrative precedents on spot zoning analyses)