Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2012 I Volume 61 No. 1 erations as they apply to local siting or surface mining." Rather, the court found the Act's policies could "re "st alongside zoning ordinances that ... re- quire surface mining operations to observe a residential setback." The court also found there was no field preemption, as it could not conclude that the General Assembly implicitly intended the Surface Min- ing Act to be exclusive with respect to the location or siting of surface mining within a municipality. Indeed, the Act had an explicit objective of "enhance[ing] land use management and planning." See also: Miller & Son Paving, Inc. v. Wrightstown Tp., 499 Pa. 80, 451 A.2d 1002 (1982). See also: Huntley & Huntley, Inc. v. Borough Council of Borough of Oak - mont, 600 Pa. 207, 964 A.2d 855, 168 O.C.R. 524 (2009). Preemption—Town Ordinare Limits Check- Cashing Businesses to Certain Zoning Districts Operators of check - cashing pusiness say ordinance is invalid because it is preempted by state banking laws I Citation: Sunrise Check Cash(ng and Payroll Services, Inc. v. Town of Hempstead, 933 N.Y.S.2d 388 (4pp, Div. 2f Dep't 2011) NEW YORK (11/29/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether a town ordinance limiting the location of check - cashing establishments to certain zoning districts in the town was preempted by New York State Banking Law and therefore invalid. The Background/Facts: In January 2006, the Town of Hempstead (the "Town ") adopted § 302(K) of article XXXI of the Towns' Building Zone Ordinance ( "Section 302(K) "). Section 302(K) prohibited check -cash- ing establishments within the Town in any districts other than industrial and light manufacturing districts. Further, under an amortization provi- sion in Section 302(K), preexisting check - cashing establishments located in districts where such establishments would be prohibited under Section 302(K) were required to terminate by amortization no later than five years after the effective date of Section 302(K). Operators of check- cashing establishments in the Town's business dis- trict (the "Operators ") challenged the validity of Section 302(K). Among other things, they maintained that Section 302(K) was preempted by New York State Banking Law. The Operators contended that the Banking Law preempted Section 302(K) "since the Banking Law sets forth a detailed and comprehensive regulatory scheme that evinced the State's intent to reserve the field of banking for State oversight and control." The Town maintained that its ordinance was valid and not preempted by state Banking Law. © 2012 Thomson Reuters 7