Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2016 I Volume 10 I Issue 23 Finally, the court held that the City ordinance providing that services funded by the tax would not be provided if the tax was appealed did not retaliate against the community facilities district property owners in violation of due process. The court explained that a claim of retaliation in violation of due pro- cess required the Association to show that: (1) the landowners in the district were engaged in constitutionally protected activity; (2) the City's retaliatory action caused the landowners to suffer an injury that would likely deter a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in that protected activity; and (3) the retaliatory action was motivated, at least in part, by the landowner's protected activity. Here, the court found that there was no retaliation, and there was no injury, penalty or adverse action to property owners for exercis- ing their rights. The court acknowledged that there would be "consequences if district property owners exercise[d] their rights and that exercise result[ed] in the repeal of the tax." However, the court found that while those consequences may be regarded as "adverse" by some, "they may well be precisely the con- sequences that are expected and desired by the property owners who take the actions." The consequences would not be triggered by the filing of petitions, initiative proceedings, or lawsuits, but rather, the consequences would "flow from the absence of the tax revenue that was to be collected to pay for services and facilities," said the court. See also: Tichinin v. City of Morgan Hill, 177 Cal. App. 4th 1049, 99 Cal. Rptr 3d 661 (6th Dist. 2009). Rezoning —Township rezones one parcel of property Objectors argue rezoning constitutes improper spot zoning Citation: DiMattio v. Millcreek Township Zoning Hearing Board, 2016 WL 5172669 (Pa. Connnw Ct. 2016) PENNSYLVANIA (09/21/16)—This case addressed the issue of whether a township's rezoning of property constituted improper spot zoning. The Background/Facts: Jeffrey L. Braver and Marvin E. Gold (the "Own- ers") owned a 24-acre parcel of land (the "Property") in Millcreek Township (the "Township"). In 2014, the Owners applied to the Township's Planning Commission (the "Commission"), requesting that the Township rezone the Property from a mix of RR (Rural Residential) and R-1 (Single Family Resi- dential) to R-2 (Low Density Residential). This "down -zoning" would allow for two-family dwellings (i.e., duplexes or townhouses) as an additional permitted residential use on the Property and would eliminate agricultural use on a portion of the Property. In June 2014, the Township Board of Supervisors (the "Supervisors") granted the Owners' request and adopted an ordinance (the "Ordinance"), amending the Township's Zoning Ordinance to reflect a rezoning of the Prop- erty from RR and R-1 to R-2. © 2016 Thomson Reuters 5