Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 23 <br />state's traditional police power." Here, the court found that the zoning amend- <br />ment to prohibit self -storage facilities within 250 feet of schools did not shock <br />the conscience as it was an attempt to protect students from the hazards that <br />the City Council believe to be associated with self -storage facilities: increased <br />crime, traffic, and illicit drugs. <br />See also: L.M. Everhart Const., Inc. v. Jefferson County Planning Com'n, 2 <br />E3d 48 (4th Cir. 1993). <br />See also: Sylvia Development Corp. v. Calvert County, Md., 48 E3d 810 <br />(4th Cir: 1995)). <br />See also: A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore County, MD, 515 E3d 356, 20 <br />A.D. Cas. (BNA) 519 (4th Cir. 2008). <br />Case Note: <br />Siena had also brought an equal protection claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. <br />With regard to that claim, the Equal Protection Clause provides that no state shall <br />deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws." Siena <br />suggested that the zoning text amendment uniquely burdened its property in a <br />discriminatory manner. The district court rejected that claim, concluding that the zon- <br />ing text amendment "was rationally based, given the residents' concerns that self - <br />storage facilities near school could attract crime and traffic that would endanger <br />students." The Fourth Circuit agreed. It also noted that Siena could not show that <br />Siena had been intentionally treated differently than others similarly situated since <br />Siena failed to identify a similarly situated competitor. Moreover, said the court, even <br />such a similarly situated competitor existed, "the zoning text amendment would apply <br />to it in the exact same way it applie[d] to Siena." <br />Billboards/Eminent Domain —City <br />denies company's billboard <br />relocation request <br />Billboard company argues denial was "illegal" because <br />denial amounted to eminent domain taking under state's <br />Billboard Compensation Statute and city failed to comply <br />with statutory eminent domain procedural requirements <br />Citation: Outfront Media, LLC v. Salt Lake City Corporation, 2017 UT 74, <br />2017 WL 4783908 (Utah 2017) <br />UTAH (10/23/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether, under Utah's <br />Billboard Compensation Statute (Utah Code section 10-9a-513), the denial of <br />a billboard relocation request by a municipality constitutes a physical taking <br />of the billboard, which requires compliance with the eminent domain <br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters 7 <br />