Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2005

Home

102 Page 8 --January 10, 2005 Z,B. Rezoning -- Township changes zoning to address traffic Change makes planned development impossible:. Citation: Maple Properties bw. v. Township of Upper Providence, U.S. District Courr for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 00-4838 (2004) PENNSYLVAxNIA (11/10/04) --Sherwood Associates asked the town to rezone its property from residential to neighborhood commercial to expand its golf cart maintenance ~'acility. The township agreed to rezone the property if Sherwood would sign a restrictive covenant limiting the uses permitted on the property. The township wanted to limit the uses of the property to prevent high-traffic commercial uses. Sherwood eventually signed the covenant. More than 70 days before Sherwood signed the covenant, however, Maple Properties Inc. and Sherwood entered halo a written agreement for the sale of the property. Maple wanted to buy the property and ultimately build a Burger King, a Seven Eleven, and a CVS store. Wh/le Maple was in the process of filing the necessary applications, the township rezoned the property from neighborhood commercial to professional business office, which made it impossible for Maple to build the three stores. Maple sued, arguing the township's decision shocked the conscience and violated its due process rights. The township requested judgment with- out a trial. DECISION: Judgment in favor of township. Maple's due process fights were not violated because the township's ac- tions were justified by legitimate land-use concerns and did not shock the conscience. Maple argued that the township's conduct shocked the conscience be- cause the rezoning was not rationally related to planning considerations. How- ever, the townsl~ip stated it rezoned Maple's property from neighborhood com- mercial to professional business office because a neighborhood commercial district would permit too many bJgh-traf51c commercial uses either by right or special exception. A professional business office district woUld be more consis- tent with the e,'dsting and recommended use in the area. In addition, federal courts generally had to defer to legislative judgment on such matters as zoning regulation because the process of political decision, making often entailed the accommodation of competing interests, which could produce laws that burdened some groups and not others. Here, the rezoning of Maple's property benefitted local land-use planning and burdened Maple. However, this was not enough to shock the conscience and violate Maple's due process fights. see also.' Unired Artistx Theatre Circuiz Inc. v. 'The Township of Warrington, 316 F. 3d 392 ( :~00.) ). 2005 Cuintan Pur~iish~ng Group. Any reproduction ~s prohibiled. For more inforrnalion please call (617) 542-0048.