Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/07/2003

Home

July 10, 2003 -- Page 5 an amendment to the concept plan. TI-IF Chesterfield sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. The court found it was Limited to determimng whether the city's decision was author/zed by f~w and supported by substantial evidence. THF Chesterfield appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The court was not limited in its determination. A power exercised by a municipal corporation was le~slative in nature ~f it prescribed a new policy or plan; it was administrative in nature ff it merely pursued a plan already adopted by the legislative body itself. For example, zoning was legislative, while a.determination to. grant or withhold a condi- tional use permit was administrative. Administrative decisions, were subject to complete judicial review. The city's zoning ordinance was already in place. THF Chesterfield was merely aslctng the city to apply the ordinances' language. Because the city's decision was in furtherance of an existing plan, the city was simply enforcing an existing zoning regulation. Consequently, the court could review all of the evidence anew and make a decision based on the merits of the case. Citation: THF Chesterfield North Development L.L.C. v. City of Chesterfield,.. Court of Appeals o~f Missouri, Eastern District, Div. 5, No. ED810606 (2003). see also: Cade v. State, 990 S.W. 2d 32 (1999). see also: Williams v. City o. f Kirlcwood, 537 S.W. 2d 571 (1976). Free Speech -- Redevelopment authority wants to close adult theater Theater in center of planned arts space PENNSYLVANIA (05/19/03) -- The New Garden Theatre Inc. operated an adult thea[er in a neighborhood considered to be in dec'Jane and in need of renewal. The Urban Redevelopment Authority of Pittsburgh filed a declaration of taldng to acquire the theater's title. The authority planned to turn the surround- ing three blocks into a public arts space. New Gm'den sued, arguing the authority was acting in bad faith. The court ruled in favor of the authority. New Garden appealed, ~guing 'the authodty's plans violated its free speech rights. D.ECISION: Affirmed. The authority did not violate the theater's free speech rights. The authority was empowered by a taw of general applicability that al- lowed organizations such as the authority to combat blight and promote eco~ nomic redevelopment. Where a determination of blight was made, the author- ity was empowered to propose remedies, and the power of eminent domain was one tool it could use to implement its proposals.