Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/05/2013

Home

August 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin The land development process in the City involved a multistep process ._' for developers: (1) submit an Application for Subdivision or Land t Development; (2) submit a Preliminary Plan, which required the approval of the City Planning Commission and City Engineer; (3) submit a Final Plan for approval by the City Planning Commission; and (4) enter into a Development Agreement with the City. In October 2004, Northeast submitted to the City for approval a Subdivision Plan for the Property. The proposed development proceeded through step 3 of the development process. In February 2006, a resolution to approve the Phase III Development Agreement was forwarded to the City Council. Ultimately, the City Council tabled the resolution to approve the Phase III Development Agreement. Northeast alleged that, as a consequence, it was unable to close on the purchase of the Property. Northeast sued, al- leging, among other things, that the City violated its procedural due pro- cess rights pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. On its own, the district court raised an issue for summary judgment: whether the City Council's decision to table the resolution for the land development agreement was a "legislative action" (as opposed to an administrative action), to which no procedural due process rights of Northeast attached. If found to be a legislative activity, then the suit would be dismissed, said the court. DECISION: Summary judgment entered in favor of City. The United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania, held that the City Council's decision to table the resolution to approve the Phase III Development Agreement was a "legislative action," to which no proce- dural, due process rights of Northeast attached. In so holding, the court explained that the protections of procedural due process do not extend to legislative actions. On the other hand, adjudica- tive acts require the provision of procedural due process. The court said that a legislative act is one that "produce[s] policies that a least ap- proximate a fair and equitable distribution of social resources and obligations." Moreover, the court noted that where a rule or action applies to more than a few people that application it is a substantial factor, though not dispositive, weighing in favor of finding the rule or action to be legislative. The court also distinguished adjudicative acts from legislative acts, noting that: adjudicative acts are those that "require[ ] factual find- ings on the particular status of a particular individual"; "while legislative decisions are those that 'rest on more general findings requiring analysis and evaluation of factors not uniquely related to any specific individual.' " Here, the court noted that the City Council's role in voting on a development agreement —or choosing not to vote on that agreement — was the sort of act that has been found to be "in form, quintessentially legislative." The court noted that the City ordinance specifically provided 8 © 2013 Thomson Reuters ))