Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Agriculture and Urbanization

Agricultural Preservation Zoning District Does
Not Result in Confiscation of Property

Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant

In McGonigle v. Lower Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board, 858 A.2d 663 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004), the plaintiff owned a 38.5 acre tract of land located in an Agricultural Preservation zoning district. The landowner sought a variance from the requirements of the zoning district so that he could develop this tract of real estate by constructing a large office park. See id. at 666. The landowner "contend[ed] that he [was] entitled to a validity variance because the application of the [Agricultural Preservation] zoning restrictions result[ed] in confiscation of the Property." Id. at 672. The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania stated that for the landowner to be entitled to a validity variance, he was required to "establish that the effect of the regulations complained of [was] unique to [his] property and that the regulations deprive[d] [him] of the use of the property." Id. After reviewing the variety of uses for which the property could be profitably utilized, the court concluded that the landowner was "not entitled to a validity variance." Id. at 673.

The case was decided on September 22, 2004; this summary was posted June 10, 2005.