Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2017

Home

1L Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2017 1 Volume 11 I Issue 21 equally effective, but merely that it must serve a defendant's legitimate interests." Looking at the evidence presented in the case, the district court found that MHANY provided at trial that: R-M zoning would not have overburdened or strained public schools; and the Village's interest in reducing traffic from the levels that existed under the P zone, could have been served by R-M zoning. The court found that evidence showed that the Village's school could have ac- commodated as many as 565 additional students, and that the R-M zoning would have, at most, added 156 additional students. The court also found that eliriunation of government office buildings (as found previously in the P zone) and replacement with residential buildings "would have reduced traffic, whether the residences were single or multi family," and any decrease in traf- fic between R-M and R-T zoning was de minimis as eliminating multi -family housing only reduced peak traffic by 3%. Thus, in conclusion, the district court determined that MHANY met its burden at trial in establishing that the Village's "legitimate, substantial, non- discriminatory interests" in not overburdening public schools and in reducing traffic could have been served by R-M zoning: The Court confirmed its find- ing that the adoption of R-T zoning instead of R-M zoning had a disparate impact on minorities in the Village. See also: Mhany Management, Inc. v. County of Nassau, 819 E3d 581 (2d Cir. 2016). Case Note: The Second Circuit had also vacated the district court's grant of surnmary judgment to the County of Nassau on MHANY's "steering" claims under Section 804(a) of the FHA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000d ("Title VII"), and remanded for reconsideration of those claims. Those claims were not addressed in the court opinion summarized here. Preemption —City regulates registration and use of drones Drone owner contends city regulations are preempted by Federal Aviation Administration regulations Citation: Singer v. City of Newton, 2017 WL 4176477 (D. Mass. 2017) MASSACHUSETTS (09/21/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a city ordinance, requiring the registration of drones and prohibiting operation of drones out of the operator's line of sight or in certain areas without permit or express permission, was preempted by Federal Aviation Administration regulations. The Background/Facts: Michael Singer ("Singer") was a resident of the © 2017 Thomson Reuters 9