Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2015

Home

November 10, 2015 !Volume 9 1 Issue 21 Zoning Bulletin ignate the property as Industrial. Because the rezone was in accord with the comprehensive plan, the court concluded that it was not impermissible type one spot zoning. H -Hook had also contended that the rezone was "quintessential type two spot zoning because it single[d] out the proposed site for an industrial nuclear power use when the proposed site [was] surrounded by mostly agricultural land." The court concluded that the rezone was also not invalid type two spot zoning. In so concluding, the court noted that there were five industrial uses within five miles of the proposed site, including a confined animal feeding operation and a county landfill. Case Note: H -Hook had also argued that the rezone was invalid because the County's amended comprehensive plan did not contain the statutorily required "analysis" for `power plant 'sites" and "utility transmission corridors" as required in Idaho Code § 67-6508(h). The Supreme Court of Idaho concluded that the amended comprehensive plan satisfied the - statute's general plan" requirement. Constitutionality of Zoning Ordinance—Zoning ordinance defines "family" as not including more than three unrelated persons Landlords challenge ordinance as unconstitutional Citation: Schwartz v. Philadelphia Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 2015 WL 5601248 (Pa. Comm. Ct. 2015) PENNSYLVANIA (09/24/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a zoning ordinance that limited single-family residential use based on a definition of "family" as "group of persons living as a single household unit using house- keeping facilities in common, but not to include more than three persons unre- lated by blood, marriage or adoption" was unconstitutional either on its face or as applied. The Background/Facts: Sheldon Schwartz ("Schwartz") and Paul Abeln ("Abeln") were landlords of properties in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (the "City"). (Hereinafter, Schwartz and Abeln are collectively referred to as the "Landlords.") Their properties were zoned for single-family and two-family res- idential use. Their properties were located near Drexel University campus, and they each rented their property to a group of University students. The City's Department of Licenses and Inspections ("L & I") issued citations to the Landlords. They were cited for violating a section of the City's Zoning Code (the "Code") that prohibited an unauthorized change in the zoned use or occupancy of a property based on the presence of more than three unrelated individuals residing in a property zoned for single-family residential use. The Code defined a "family" as: 4 © 2015 Thomson Reuters