Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/09/2014

Home

November 25, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 22 Zoning Bulletin sue of fact that the Ordinance was enacted in order to discriminate against them on the basis of disability, and that its enactment and enforcement harmed them. The court reversed the district court's dis- missal of the Group Homes' claims and remanded the matter. See also: Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S. Ct. 555, 50 L. Ed. 2d 450 (1977). See also: Hunter v. Underwood, 471 U.S. 222, 105 S. Ct. 1916, 85 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1985). See also: The Committee Concerning Community Improvement v. City of Modesto, 583 F.3d 690, 703 (9th Cir. 2009). Case Note: In its decision, the court explained that the case "demonstrates why requiring anti -discrimination plaintiffs to prove the existence of a better -treated equity would lead to unacceptable results ": "Plaintiffs in anti -discrimination suits would be unable to demonstrate the discriminatory intent of a defendant that openly admitted its intent to discriminate, so long as the defendant (a) relies on a facially neutral law or policy and (b) is willing to `overdiscriminate' by enforcing the facially neutral law or policy even against similarly -situated individuals who are not members of the disfavored group. Such a rule pre- sents the 'grotesque scenario where a[] [defendant] can effectively immunize itself from suit if it is so thorough in its discrimination that all similarly situ- ated [entities] are victimized,' " said the court. Interpretation of Zoning Ordinance — After zoning enforcement officer issues zoning permit to build on lot, adjacent lot owners appeal They argue that in issuing the permit the officer misinterpreted the term "separately owned" in the zoning regulation Citation: Cockerham v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Montville, 146 Conn. App. 355, 2013 WL 5458814 (2013) CONNECTICUT (10/08/13)—This case addressed the issue of 6 © 2013 Thomson Reuters