Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/06/2012

Home

November 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin church had brought a class -of -one equal protection claim (Le., where a single in- dividual can claim a violation of his/her/its Equal Protection rights based on arbitrary disparate treatment). The court concluded that the Church's class -of - one claim was cognizable given the context: the case presented a clear standard against which departures could be easily assessed; the SEQRA review process was guided by regulation and the result could be challenged under Article 78; the Town was acting in its regulatory capacity as a sovereign rather than as a propri- etor, making decisions about the ways in which property owners could use their land; and the evidence provided by the Church illustrated a disparity in treatment that could not fairly be attributed to discretion. Moreover, while the court recognized that the Church's "use of multiple comparators [was] unusual" (and provided the court with its first opportunity to address that issue); the court concluded that the Church's evidence of several other projects treated differently with regard to discrete issues was sufficient in this case to support a class -of -one claim. "Where, as here, the issues compared are discrete and not cumulative or affected by the character of the project as a whole, multiple comparators are saif- ficient so long as the issues being compared are so similar that differential treat- ment with regard to them cannot be explained by anything other than discrimination." Under Article 78 of New York's Civil Procedure Law, a town's SEQRA determi- nation may be set aside when it is "arbitrary, capricious or unsupported by the evidence." The court concluded that the record contained "ample evidence to support the district court's conclusion that the Town's actions were wholly disingenuous." Validity of Zoning Ordinance — Property ownerseeks rezone via curative amendment Property owner also argues current zoning is confiscatory Citation: Rice Family Trust v. City of St. Marys, 51 A.3d 913 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2012) PENNSYLVANIA (09/07/12) This case addressed the issue of whether a zoning ordinance that limited a landowner's property to a speci- fied zoning district and specific allowed uses was: "arbitrary, unreason- able, or inconsistent with the stated purpose" of the zoning district, and thus subject to a curative amendment; and/or "confiscatory." The Background/Facts: In April 2010, to protect its position as a third mortgage lienholder, the Rice Family Trust (the "Trust") purchased certain 6 © 2012 Thomson Reuters