Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/06/2003

Home

Page 2 -- October !.0, 2003 Z.B. Denial -- Developer claims good name ruined Sues city for violation of due process fights NEW YORK (08/22/03) -- Chapel Farms Estates Inc. sought to develop land it owned in the Bronx. Chapel Farms wanted to subdivide the property into 14 tax lois for the construction of 13 new homes. Neighboring residents opposed the subdivision and banded together as a citizens' group. Lawyers in the group volunteered their fkrms, and police Offic- ers in the ~oup managed to get an access street shut down for an "annual" street closing that had never actually happened before. During the fight, Chapel Farm failed to get much help from city organizations. Alter several hear/rigs and a protracted legal battle with the residents, the city denied Chapel Farm's application. Chapel Farm sued, claiming the city, violated its due process rights by dis- paraging [ts good name. DECISION: Judgment in favor of city, The city's decision did not violate Chapel Farm's due process r/ghts. There is a liberty interest where a person's good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what: the government is doing to him or her. However, the loss of. reputation must. be coupled with some other tangible ele- ment in order to r/se to the level of a protectable interest. In support of its argument, Chapel Farm merely listed the findings of fact the city used to reject the application. These facts did not stigmatize Chapel Farm as an unfit developer, environmental spoiler, or untrustworthy business. Citation: Chapel Farm Estates [nc. v. Moerdler, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of ~Vew York, No. 0-1 Civ. 360] (MBM) (2003). see also: Wisconsin v. Consranrineau, 400 U.S. 433 (1971). see also: Valmonre v. Bane, ]8 F. 3d 992 (1994). 116 Denial -- Commission states it will 'sift the sand' to support its decision Subdivision developer claims commission abused its power INDL&NA (08/20/03) -- Van Vactor Farms Inc. applied for preliminary plat approval of a subdivision. The subdivision was to be located on farmland owned by Van Vactor, wh/ch was zoned agricultural with a provision allowing single- family dwellings to be built. The Marshall County, Plan Cormmssion conducted several heatings and received a large amount of evidence in the eighbmonth period it considered Van Vactor's application. Of particular concern was evidence roadways could not safely accommodate additional traffic, septic tanks would cause ground- water contamination, and years of application of wastewater sludge to the farm- land had made it dangerous. The commsss/on ultimately voted to deny the application. In its denial,