Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2009

Home

March 25,20091 Volume 31 No.6 Zoning Bulletin did not have a present interest in the Land. Thus, its option was merely a "phantom connection" to the Land. The court, however, found that the township's arguments "unfairly . diminish[ed] the valuable rights possessed by an optionee." By paying substantial sums to Readington Properties, Toll Brothers had "gained the right to demand conveyance of the [Land] for a set price ... ." That op- tion itself, said the court, was a valuable property right. And the value of that right depended on the value of the Land. By driving down the value of the Land with the rezone, the township also drove down the value of Toll Brothers' option. That harm to Toll Brothers' own property was an economic injury, which satisfied the injury-in-fact element required for standing. - Additionally, the court found that the traceability element for stand- ing was satisfied. The township's rezoning directly caused Toll Brothers' inability to proceed with its development plans and directly impacted the value of Toll Brothers' option. The court also found that Toll Brothers satisfied the redress ability el- ement for standing. The court acknowledged that Toll Brothers could. choose not to exercise its option and' thus there was no "guarantee" that the claimed inj:ury would be redressed by afavorabledecisioninvalidat- ing the Ordinance. However,. the court found that "rreedomtorefrain from exercising its option" did not defeat Toll Brothers' standing. Giv- en Toll Brothers substantial investment in the plans for the proposed d~velopment, funds spent in maintaining its option, and several years spent in litigation, the court found it was "substantially likely" that a favorable decision would result in construction of Toll Brothers' planned developments. See also: Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Develop- ment Corp., 429 U.S. 252; 97 S. Ct; 555, 50 L. Ed. 2d 450 .(1977). See also: Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. U.S. ex reI. Stevens, 529 U.S. 765, 120 S. Ct. 1858, 146 L. Ed. 2d 836, 50 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1545, 16 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 417,30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20622 (2000). Case Note: In determining whether the element of redress ability was satisfied, the court said that the relevant question was not wheth- erToll Brothers might walk away from its development plan after receiving a favorable decision; the relevant question was whether it was likely to do so. 10 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 40 ~ ( ) o ( ) .~