Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 11 <br />dominium project was rationally related to the persistent asbestos and <br />building code problems on the property. In other words, the court found <br />that the actions of the City with regard to Miller's project had rational <br />explanations. Because there were "potential rational reasons to target <br />Miller's derelict property," the court concluded that the district court <br />had properly dismissed Miller's class -of -one equal protection claim. <br />See also: Swanson v. City of Chetek, 719 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 2013). <br />See also: Geinosky v. City of Chicago, 675 F.3d 743, 86 A.L.R.6th <br />713 (7th Cir. 2012). <br />Case Note: <br />Miller also brought a claim of sex discrimination. The district court issued sum- <br />mary judgment in favor of the City on that claim, and Miller did not challenge <br />that decision. <br />Preemption/Special Use Despite <br />township's zoning ordinance <br />prohibiting helistops, state agency <br />issues helistop special use <br />license to applicant for use in <br />township <br />Township appeals arguing zoning ordinance <br />precludes grant of license <br />Citation: Township of Fairfield v. State, Dept. of Transp., 2014 WL <br />8514005 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015) <br />NEW JERSEY (04/10/15) This case addressed the issue of whether <br />the New Jersey Department of Transportation could issue a special use <br />license in contravention to a local zoning ordinance prohibiting such <br />use. <br />The Background/Facts: Anthony Pio Costa ("Pio Costa") owned <br />property (the "Property") in an industrial park in a C-3 Zone in Fairfield <br />Township, New Jersey ("Fairfield"). Pursuant to Fairfield's zoning <br />ordinance, helipads were prohibited in C-3 zones. Thus, pursuant to <br />Fairfield's zoning ordinance, the use of the Property for helistops was <br />prohibited. Nonetheless, Pio Costa was granted a temporary helistop <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />