Golf Enterprises, Inc. v. Newberry Twp. Board of Supervisors v. Valley Green Residents Organization
Golf Enterprises, Inc. v. Newberry Twp. Board of Supervisors v. Valley Green Residents Organization - 97 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 25, 2017Background
- GEI owns a 100‑acre parcel (Valley Green Golf Course) in Newberry Township that was rezoned in 2006 from Commercial Recreation (C‑3) to an Open Space (OS) district; adjacent parcels are primarily residential or agricultural.
- Before 2006 the C‑3 district allowed golf courses and golf‑course cluster developments; GEI previously received conditional approvals for two cluster projects (Townes on the Green; Bent Water Crossing) that used the parcel for required open space.
- The 2006 Ordinance created OS as a district (golf courses conditional use) and left surrounding parcels zoned Residential Growth (RG); the Township comprehensive plan (2004) identified the Property for protection as open space.
- GEI filed a curative amendment petition (with a sketch plan for ~355 homes) arguing the OS zoning constituted invalid spot zoning and was arbitrary/irrational; the Township planning commission recommended denial, county planning recommended rezoning but not GEI’s proposed text change.
- After four days of hearings the Board denied GEI’s petition, finding the OS designation consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with adjacent RG uses, justified by public‑interest concerns (notably road capacity/safety on Valley Green Road), and not an instance of spot or arbitrary zoning; the trial court and Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 2006 rezoning of GEI’s parcel to OS = invalid spot zoning | GEI: rezoning singled out parcel; physical characteristics same as neighbors; rezoning freezes land for private owner’s detriment (reverse spot zoning) — like Realen | Township: OS consistent with comprehensive plan; surrounding area not intensely developed; OS and RG compatible; rezoning served communitywide interests | Held: Not spot zoning — Board reasonably justified differential treatment; case distinguishable from Realen |
| Whether OS zoning was arbitrary or irrational | GEI: no rational basis; parcel connected to sewer/water; prior approvals show residential use feasible | Township: rezoning reflected comprehensive plan goals (open space protection), traffic/road safety concerns, and prior cluster approvals contemplated open space use | Held: Not arbitrary/irrational — rezoning aligned with a considered comprehensive plan and public‑interest concerns |
| Whether inconsistency with comprehensive plan supports challenge | GEI: argued plan/designations support rezoning to RG | Township: Section 303(c) MPC precludes invalidating action solely for inconsistency; plan supported OS designation anyway | Held: Court relied on plan consistency as supportive; GEI’s inconsistency argument rejected under MPC framework |
| Whether GEI met MPC §609.1(c) site‑specific criteria for relief | GEI: proposed site plan meets housing need and development standards | Township: GEI already has many approved but unbuilt units; traffic and road deficiencies show negative public impacts | Held: GEI failed to satisfy §609.1(c) criteria (e.g., regional need and public resource impacts) |
Key Cases Cited
- Realen Valley Forge Greenes Ass’n v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 838 A.2d 718 (Pa. 2003) (reverse spot zoning doctrine and substantive due process balancing in zoning challenges)
- Penn Street, L.P. v. East Lampeter Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd., 84 A.3d 1114 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (spot‑zoning analysis and deference where rezoning is debatable)
- Atherton Dev. Co. v. Twp. of Ferguson, 29 A.3d 1197 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (rejecting spot‑zoning challenge where property use compatible with zoning)
- Piper Group, Inc. v. Bedminster Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 30 A.3d 1083 (Pa. 2011) (procedures and standards for curative amendment petitions)