Takacs v. Indian Lake Borough Zoning Hearing Board
11 A.3d 587
Pa. Commw. Ct.2010Background
- Mayor recommended appointing zoning committee in July 2004 to study Ordinance No. 99 and advise amendments.
- Ad hoc committee studied Ordinance No. 99 for hundreds of hours and sought input from enforcement, planning, and ZHB members.
- Public notices and hearings were held (Mar 14, 2007; Mar 28, 2007; Jun 16, 2007; Aug 29, 2007) with public comments submitted in meetings and in writing.
- Ordinance No. 144 was enacted on Aug 29, 2007, adding multi‑family structures and commercial boat docking as permitted uses in the Commercial-Recreational (C-R) District.
- Takacs appealed the validity of Ordinance No. 144 to the ZHB in Sep 2007; the ZHB denied relief and the trial court later upheld, with Takacs appealing to Commonwealth Court.
- The trial court concluded the 144 changes applied to the entire C-R District, not creating a lakefront “island,” and upheld that the amendments were not arbitrary, unreasonable, or unrelated to public welfare.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether initiation of amendments complied with Ordinance No. 99 §907 vs MPC §609. | Takacs—amendments not initiated by Planning Commission as §907 requires. | Borough—MPC §609 governs and does not require Commission initiation. | §907 invalid to the extent conflicting with MPC §609; amendments not invalid on initiation grounds. |
| Whether Ordinance No. 144 constitutes a zoning map change requiring additional notice. | Takacs—adding uses in C-R District is a map change needing notice. | Not a map change; no extra notice required. | Addition of uses is not a zoning map change; no map-change notice required. |
| Whether the amendments amount to improper spot zoning. | Takacs—rezoning favors St. Clair’s lakefront land and creates an island. | Amendments apply to entire C-R District; not spot zoning. | Not spot zoning; changes apply to entire district and are justified. |
| Whether there was illegal contract zoning tied to a 1973 agreement. | Takacs—1973 contract influenced zoning change. | Cannot prove general-welfare countervailing against contract; no improper zoning. | No illegal contract zoning established; no substantial public-welfare contrary evidence. |
| Whether procedural irregularities indicate spot zoning or improper process. | Takacs—ad hoc committee, lack of solicitor advisory, board removals. | Procedural variances did not render zoning invalid; Commission’s action proper. | Procedural irregularities do not prove spot zoning; zoning valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schubach v. Silver, 461 Pa. 366, 336 A.2d 328 (Pa. 1975) (land-use lobbies do not by themselves render amendments improper)
- Plaxton v. Lycoming County Zoning Hearing Board, 986 A.2d 199 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (legislative body’s intent not affected by lobbying; must stand on its own terms)
- BPG Real Estate Investors-Straw Party II, L.P. v. Board of Supervisors, 990 A.2d 140 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (spot zoning is evaluated by whether provisions are arbitrary and unrelated to welfare)
- Gladwyne Colony, Inc. v. Township of Lower Merion, 409 Pa. 441, 187 A.2d 549 (Pa. 1963) (contract zoning prohibition; must show arbitrary or discriminatory conduct)
- In re Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates, 576 Pa. 115, 838 A.2d 718 (Pa. 2003) (spot zoning analysis; need for public welfare connection)
- Rickert v. Latimore Township Board of Supervisors, 869 A.2d 1086 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2005) (zoning map changes require distinct analysis; use as authority on map changes)