Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I No. 1 Thus, the court concluded that the legislature had specifically delegated to the Superintendent the 'task of determining whether particular locations were appropriate for check - cashing establishments. Meanwhile, here, the court found that in adopting Section 302(K), the Town had "necessarily determined that, in its estimation, the Town's busi- ness district [was] not an appropriate location for check - cashing establish- ments, and that such establishments [were] only appropriate in the Town's industrial and light manufacturing districts." The court concluded that the Town's attempt to control the determina- tion of the appropriate locations of these establishments by enactment of Section 302(K) was in conflict with Banking Law § 369(1); Section 302(K) had more than a tangential impact on the relevant Banking Law provi- sions. Section 302(K) purported to accomplish the same function delegated by the legislature to the Superintendent in making a determination as to the appropriate location for check- cashing establishments. Section 302(K) thus purported to divest the Superintendent of that authority. The court concluded that Section 302(K) was therefore invalid based on the doctrine of conflict preemption. See also: Chwick v. Mulvey, 81 A.D.3d 161, 915 N.Y.S.2d 578 (2d Dep't 2010). See also: Lansdown Entertainment Corp. v. New York City Dept. of Con- sumer Affairs, 74 N. Y.2d 761, 545 N.Y.S.2d 82, 543 N.E.2d 725 (1989). Insurance insurer Refuses to Defend County in Lawsuit Alleging Fair Housing Act Violations by County Insurer points to planning and zoning related exclusions in public entity insurance policy Citation: County of Boise v. Idaho Counties Risk Management Program, Underwriters, 2011 WL 5966878 (Idaho 2011) IDAHO (11/30/11)—Although this case did not specifically deal with a zoning issue, it dealt with an issue that any municipality may face when making zoning and planning decisions. This case involved an insurance coverage dispute. It addressed whether Fair Housing Act claims brought against a county, arising from zoning and planning decisions it had made, were excluded from the county's public entity insurance policy coverage. The BackgroundlFacts: In January 2008, Alamar Ranch, LLC ("Ala- mar") sued the County of Boise (the "County") in federal court. Alamar alleged that the County violated the federal Fair Housing Act ("FHA"). Alamar alleged that these FHA violations arose out of decisions made by the County's Planning and Zoning Commission and the County Board of Commissioners. © 2012 Thomson Reuters 9