Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2009

Home

:(~ . I .c...../ t. __ Zoning Bulletin March 25, 20091 Volume 3 I NO.6 (~) '~".J After entering into the option contract, Toll Brothers formulated de- velopment plans for single-family housing and an office park on the Land. After Toll Brothers submitted a formal application to the township's planning board requesting approval for construction of the office devel- opment, the township passed an ordinance(the "Ordinance") rezoning the Land. It rezoned the Land "agricult]1ral-residentiaL" That classifica- tion allowed for just three uses: "(1) farms; (2) open space and parks; and (3) residential uses at one residential dwelling per six acres."Constr- quently, Toll Brothers proposed office park was prohibited. Additionally, Toll Brothers claimed that the density restrictions for residential dwell- ings made any residential development economically unfeasible. Toll Brothers later sued the township in federal court. Toll Brothers' alleged <;:laims included county violations of the United States Constitu- tion as well as violations of the Fair Housing Act. It asked the federal district court to order the Ordinance invalid. . The district court found that Toll Brothers did not have legal stand- ing to bring the claim because, as the owner of an unexercised option, its claimed injury was not "concrete and particularized." The court dis- missed Toll Brothers' complaint. Toll Brothers appealed. DECISION: Vacated and remanded with instructions. The United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, held that Toll Brothers, as a developer with an option to purchase a parcel of land, had standing to challenge the township's zoning restrictions th?t prevented its planned development from going forward. In r~aching this conclusion, the court explained that in order to bring a claim in federal court, Toll Brothers had to have standing. In order to have standing, Toll Brothers had to establish three elements. First, and most determinative, Toll Brothers had to suffer an injury-in-fact. That meant that is had to suffer an injury personally that did not affect other citizens generally. Second, the injury had to be "fairly traceable to the challenged action of the [township], and not the result of the indepen- dent action of some third party not before the court." Third, Toll Broth- ers had to show that a favorable decision by a court would redress its ID]ury. The township had 'argued that Toll Brothers' clairD.ed injury was insuf- ficient to establish injUry-in-fact and give it standing. The township con- tended this was because any injury to Toll Brothers was "no more than the loss of a speculative business opportunity." The township argued . that because Toll Brothers only had an option to purchase the Land, it (J . . @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 9 39