Court Opinion

ID: 9649558
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 15:01:07.438725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:12.398965
License: Public Domain

CONCURRING OPINION BY
Judge SIMPSON.
I concur in the thoughtful majority opinion which reverses the order of the respected trial court and reinstates the decision of the Union Township Zoning Hearing Board (Board). I write separately to clarify a point which caused some confusion both to the Board’s hearing officer, Ronald Agulnick, Esq., and to the trial court. The point of confusion centers on the requirement in Section 1105.2(F) of the zoning ordinance that “The granting of the Special Exception shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.”
We construed similar language in 41 Valley Associates v. Board of Supervisors of London Grove Township, 882 A.2d 5 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005). In that case, we considered whether a proposed agricultural security area (ASA) met the requirement of the Agricultural Area Security Law1 that the use of land proposed for inclusion in an ASA “shall be compatible with local government unit comprehensive plans.”2 We concluded that this language
address[es] whether the proposed land is viable agricultural land from a legal viewpoint. Agricultural uses should be consistent with present zoning. In addition, agricultural uses should be consistent with future zoning, as best estimated in the comprehensive plan.
41 Valley Assocs., 882 A.2d at 14 (emphasis added). Applying this interpretation of the statutory language, we looked at the map of future uses for the property. Ultimately, we concluded the governing body erred when it departed from analyzing discrete and objective criteria relating to the current and future zoning for the property and focused instead on the goals of the comprehensive plan. Id.
Here, the proposed motorsports park is currently in an Agricultural Preservation District, which permits recreation uses by special exception. Moreover, in the certified record, attached to the Union Township Comprehensive Plan Update, April *4421994, is Figure 10, “Future Land Use Map-2010.” The future use for the land in the area of the motorsports park is mapped as Agricultural Preservation.
In short, there is nothing in the Comprehensive Plan indicating a possible future change of zoning which would affect the area of the proposed motorsports park. Under these circumstances, no error is discerned in the hearing officer’s determination that the motorsports park is a recreation use and that recreation uses are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

. Act of June 30, 1981, P.L. 128, as amended, 3 P.S. §§ 901-915.

. Section 7 of the Agricultural Area Security Law, 3 P.S. § 907(a)(2).