Main Street Development Group, Inc. v. Tinicum Township Board of Supervisors
2011 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 112
Pa. Commw. Ct.2011Background
- Developer owns 25.1379 acres at Durham Rd/Route 611 in Tinicum Township CC zone; seeks to develop 192 garden apartments; Section 806(i) overlay restricts development to 25% of prime soils; overlay applies broadly across districts, effectively reducing non-agricultural zones to illusory uses; Board and trial court dispute the validity of 806(i) as applied; trial court ruled 806(i) unconstitutional as applied; this Court affirms the trial court’s ruling.
- Most of Tinicum is rural agricultural or rural conservation; 11% is non-agricultural (including commercial/industrial districts); prime soils are widespread; the overlay concentrates restriction in the “development district” where the Property lies.
- Development district overlay plus underlying zoning allegedly converts much of Township to quasi-agricultural use, limiting non-agricultural growth and conflicting with MPC goals for development and farmland preservation.
- Developer proposed curative amendment to exclude CC, C, LC and PI from 806(i); argued the overlay unconstitutionally constrains development and is inconsistent with MPC.
- The issue is whether 806(i) as applied to non-agricultural districts violates substantive due process, MPC balance requirements, and Township purposes; the Court affirms the trial court’s invalidation of 806(i) as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 806(i) as applied violate substantive due process? | Tinicum contends 806(i) deprives reasonable use in development districts. | Tinicum argues 806(i) balances agriculture and development per MPC. | Yes; unconstitutional as applied. |
| Is there MPC-based balance between agriculture and development? | Developer argues the balance is not achieved; development district illusory. | Township maintains balance through overlay protecting prime soils. | No; balance not achieved; ordinance unconstitutional as applied. |
| Does overlay disturb expectations created by underlying zoning? | Overlay converts non-ag districts toward agricultural use, undermining district purposes. | Overlay complements zoning by protecting soils. | Yes; it unduly disturbs expectations and disrupts MPC balance. |
| Does 806(i) violate Township purposes or MPC objectives? | Overly restrictive, hampers reasonable development. | Pursuant to MPC, preserves farmland while permitting growth. | Yes; violates MPC and Township purposes. |
| Is the remedy to sever 806(i) from non-agricultural districts warranted? | Curative amendment to carve out CC, C, LC, PI needed. | No curative needed; ordinance valid overall. | Undetermined here; focus is invalidity as applied; court remand not necessary to decide curative power. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boundary Drive Associates v. Shrewsbury Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 507 Pa. 481, 491 A.2d 86 (Pa. 1985) (structural balance of public health and private rights; standard of review for zoning validity)
- Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (U.S. 1926) (fundamental police power basis for zoning)
- Hopewell Township Bd. of Supervisors v. Golla, 499 Pa. 246, 452 A.2d 1337 (Pa. 1982) (balancing agricultural protection with development)
- C & M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster Twp ZHB, 573 Pa. 2, 820 A.2d 143 (Pa. 2002) (balance between agriculture and development; overbroad restrictions void)
- BAC, Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Millcreek Twp, 534 Pa. 381, 633 A.2d 144 (Pa. 1993) (exclusionary impact analysis in zoning challenges)
- Surrick v. ZHB of Upper Providence Twp, 476 Pa. 182, 382 A.2d 105 (Pa. 1978) (standards for challenged zoning ordinances)
- Hock v. Bd. of Supervisors of Mt. Pleasant Twp, 154 Pa.Cmwlth. 101, 622 A.2d 431 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (overlay districts and agriculture preservation guidance)
- Finn v. ZHB of Beaver Borough, 869 A.2d 1124 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (scope of review in land use appeals)