Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 3 based on a zoning ordinance — Ordinance 2836 —that prohibited the use of a senior - living facility. Parvati and Bethlehem then filed suit against the city, the Zoning Commission, and certain city officials (collectively, the "City"). The suit asked the court to reverse the Zoning Commission's decision under state -law administrative review. It also sought monetary damages under constitutional and statutory claims. Because of the constitutional claims (equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution), the case was removed to federal court. The federal district court affirmed the Zoning Commission's decision. , It dismissed the state -law administrative review claim. Parvati and Beth- lehem then moved for voluntary dismissal of the constitutional and stat- utory claims. That dismissal was granted and the case was terminated. In July 2008, Parvati (alone) moved for postjudgment relief. It alleged that the City had misrepresented the validity of Ordinance 2836. Parvati maintained that proper legal procedures were not followed when Ordi- nance 2836 was enacted. Parvati asked the court to vacate the earlier order and to reevaluate the Zoning Commission's decision under the or- dinance that existed prior to Ordinance 2836. The district court ultimately reaffirmed its original order, upholding the Zoning Commission's decision. Parvati appealed. The City maintained that Parvati's appeal failed because Parvati now lacked standing to reopen the administrative- review claim. Parvati had transferred ownership of the property to its mortgage lender a few months earlier in order to resolve foreclosure proceedings. DECISION: Vacated; matter remanded with instructions to dismiss Par - vati's motions. Agreeing with the City, the United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, held that Parvati's claims failed. The court said this was because Parvati lost standing to challenge the Zoning Commission's decision when it conveyed the property to its mortgage lender. The court explained that it could only hear the case if Parvati had standing. Standing required: (1) an injury in fact; (2) fairly traceable to the defendant's (i.e., here, the City) action; and (3) capable of being re- dressed by a favorable decision from the court. Also, emphasized the court, "standing must be present at all stages of the litigation, including on appeal." The relief Parvati sought —a decision vacating the district court's earlier order and reversing the Zoning Commission's decision — was a remedy that could benefit only the property owner. Since Parvati no longer owned the property, it lacked standing to challenge the Zoning Commission's decision. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 3