Penn Street, L.P. v. East Lampeter Township Zoning Hearing Board
84 A.3d 1114
Pa. Commw. Ct.2014Background
- Applicant Penn Street, L.P. owns 16.11 acres at the Bowman and Rockvale Roads intersection in East Lampeter Township, zoned R-Rural.
- Applicant seeks to subdivide into 54 parcels and build single-family homes.
- Applicant challenged the zoning ordinance and map as substantively invalid and sought site-specific relief.
- ZHB denied Applicant’s substantive validity challenges after extensive testimony and findings.
- Trial court affirmed, and Applicant appeals to this Court.
- Court affirms the ZHB and trial court’s rulings on the substantive validity challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the R-Rural zoning of the property reverse spot zoning? | Applicant asserts the rural zoning is an island in a sea of commercial zoning. | The Township argues no reverse spot zoning; surrounding areas and facts support the zoning. | No reverse spot zoning; zoning is reasonable and consistent with surrounding land uses. |
| Are the Section 704(2) density restrictions substantively valid? | Section 704(2) unduly restricts development and is discriminatory against larger tracts. | Fixed-scale agricultural preservation is a legitimate, county-wide practice balancing agriculture and development. | Section 704(2) valid; fixed-scale density fosters agricultural preservation and reasonable development. |
| Was Applicant deprived of due process by ZHB conduct or credibility determinations? | ZHB Chair's conduct showed bias; ZHB favored Township and misused credibility findings. | Hearings were fair; credibility determinations are reviewable only on the record. | No due-process violation; ZHB findings were supported and credibility determinations proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates, 576 Pa. 115 (Pa. 2003) (reverse spot zoning when challenged as arbitrary and unrelated to police power)
- Atherton Dev. Co. v. Turp. of Ferguson, 29 A.3d 1197 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (spot zoning framework; deference to legislative decisions when debatable)
- C&M Developers, Inc. v. Bedminster Twp. ZHB, 573 Pa. 2 (Pa. 2002) (density/land-use restrictions; set-aside risks deemed invalid if exclusionary)
- Briar Meadows Dev., Inc. v. S. Centre Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 2 A.3d 1303 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (comparative Lancaster County agricultural zoning approaches)
- Hock v. Bd. of Supervisors of Mount Pleasant Twp., 154 Pa.Cmwlth. 101 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1993) (factor of consistency with stated district purpose in reasonableness review)
- Main Street Development Group, Inc. v. Tinicum Twp. Bd. of Supervisors, 19 A.3d 21 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2011) (balancing agricultural preservation with reasonable development under MPC)