Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization

Agricultural Preservation Zone Not
Impermissible Spot Zoning

Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In Christman v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Windsor, 854 A.2d 629, 631-32 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004), landowners "challenged inclusion of their property in a new agricultural preservation zone" by arguing that "the boundaries of the new zone constitute[d] 'spot zoning.'" The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated that "[t]he most determinative factor in an analysis of a spot zoning question is whether the parcel in question is being treated unjustifiably different from similar surrounding land." Id. at 635 (citation omitted). The landowners attempted to support their spot zoning contention by arguing that "other property owners opted out of the new zone, while they were not allowed to do so." Id. at 634. The court, however, noted the Zoning Hearing Board's determination that there was no evidence that properties were removed from the new zone "simply because their owners requested they be removed." Id. at 635. The court concluded that the Zoning Hearing Board had properly found that the landowners had failed to satisfy their burden of proving that the establishment of the new zone was arbitrary and unreasonable. See id.

The case was decided on July 15, 2004; this summary was posted June 10, 2005.