Briar Meadows Development, Inc. v. South Centre Township Board of Supervisors
2010 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 456, 2 A.3d 1303, 2010 WL 3239284 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, a zoning ordinance cannot be substantively challenged or invalidated solely on the basis that it is inconsistent with the municipality's comprehensive plan.
Facts:
- Briar Meadows Development, Inc. (Briar) holds an option to purchase two adjacent tracts of land in South Centre Township, totaling approximately 125 acres.
- The properties are bounded by major roads, including Interstate 80 and State Route 11.
- A 33.89-acre parcel is zoned entirely as Agricultural.
- A 91.5-acre parcel is split-zoned, with a portion in the Agricultural district and only 21% in the Commercial district.
- The commercially zoned portion of the split-zoned parcel cannot be accessed without crossing through the agriculturally zoned portion.
- Briar proposed to develop the properties into a planned commercial center with thirty building lots.
- The Township's comprehensive plan identifies the area where the properties are located as being ideally suited for commercial and industrial growth.
Procedural Posture:
- Briar Meadows Development, Inc. filed a curative amendment application with the South Centre Township Board of Supervisors (Board) to rezone its property.
- After a hearing, the Board issued a decision denying the application.
- Briar appealed the Board's decision to the Court of Common Pleas (trial court).
- The trial court initially remanded to the Board, but later amended its order to conduct its own hearing to take additional, non-duplicative evidence.
- After the hearing, the trial court denied Briar’s curative amendment request and affirmed the Board’s decision.
- Briar (appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a zoning ordinance's inconsistency with a municipality's comprehensive plan provide a valid legal basis for a substantive challenge to the ordinance under the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code?
Opinions:
Majority - Senior Judge Flaherty
No. A zoning ordinance's inconsistency with a comprehensive plan does not provide a valid legal basis for a substantive challenge. The court reasoned that Section 303(c) of the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) explicitly states that no municipal action shall be invalid or subject to challenge on the basis that it is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Citing precedent like CACO Three, Inc., the court affirmed that a comprehensive plan is an 'abstract recommendation' and a 'useful tool for guiding growth,' but it is not a legally binding document that can be used to invalidate a duly enacted zoning ordinance. Briar's challenge was based almost entirely on this inconsistency, which is not a legally cognizable claim. The court also rejected Briar's 'reverse spot zoning' argument, finding that the agriculturally zoned land was contiguous with other agricultural properties and did not form an improperly zoned 'island.' The factors listed in Section 609.1(c) of the MPC are only considered after a court finds a validity challenge has merit, which was not the case here.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal hierarchy in Pennsylvania land use law, firmly placing enacted zoning ordinances above advisory comprehensive plans. It clarifies that a comprehensive plan is aspirational and cannot be wielded by landowners or developers as a legal tool to compel a municipality to rezone property, even if the proposed use aligns perfectly with the plan's stated goals. The ruling insulates municipalities from challenges based merely on inconsistencies between their long-term planning documents and their current, legally binding zoning maps. Future challengers must demonstrate a concrete constitutional defect in the ordinance itself, such as it being arbitrary, unreasonable, or creating illegal spot zoning, rather than simply pointing to a conflict with the comprehensive plan.
