Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin <br />September 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 17 <br />Uses/Construction of rdinance— <br />Village oning rdinance Prohibits <br />peration of Formula Fast-food <br />Restaurants <br />Property owner says ordinance unlawfully <br />regulates ownership of property <br />Citation: Mead Square Commons, LLC v. Village of Victor, 97 <br />A.D.3d 1162, 948 N.Y.S.2d 514 (4th Dep't 2012) <br />NEW YORK (07/06/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a zoning ordinance prohibiting formula fast-food restaurants was in- <br />valid for unconstitutionally regulating based solely upon the ownership <br />or control of the restaurant owner and not upon the characteristics of <br />the use itself. <br />The Background/Facts: Mead Square Commons, LLC ("Mead") <br />owned property in the Central Business District of the Village of Vic- <br />tor (the "Village"). Mead sought to rent its commercial space to a <br />Subway restaurant. <br />Section 170-13(C)(1) of Village's Zoning Ordinance (the "Ordi- <br />nance") prohibited the operation of a formula fast-food restaurant <br />("FFFR") in the Village's Central Business District. A FFFR was <br />defined as "[a]ny establishment, required by contract, franchise or other <br />arrangements, to offer two or more of the following: [ 1 ] Standardized <br />menus, ingredients, food preparation, and/or uniforms[;] [2] Prepared <br />food in ready -to -consume state[;] [3] Food sold over the counter in <br />disposable containers and wrappers[;] [4] Food selected from a limited <br />menu[;] [5] Food sold for immediate consumption on or offpremises <br />[;] [6] Where customer pays before eating." <br />The Subway that Mead sought to rent its commercial space to quali- <br />fied as an FFFR under the Ordinance. <br />Mead commenced a legal action challenging the validity of the <br />Ordinance. It argued that the Ordinance should be declared invalid <br />because it was unconstitutional. Mead alleged that the Ordinance was <br />unconstitutional because it was "based solely upon the ownership or <br />control of the restaurant owner and not upon the characteristics of the <br />use itself." <br />Both Mead and the Village moved for summary judgment. Each <br />asked the court tofind that there were no material issues of fact in <br />dispute and to decide the matter in its favor on the law alone. <br />© 2012 Thomson Reuters <br />