Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2005

Home

June 25, 2005 --Page 3 Ordinance-- Subdivision allowed only one access point t° road Developer claims this violates his constitutional rights Citation: Rucci v. Cranberry Township, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-2440 (2005) The 3rd U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the V~rgin Islands. PENNSYLVANIA (05/11/05) -- Rucci wanted to develop a housing subdivision on land he owned in Cranberry Township. The land was surrounded by single- family subdivisions and abutted by two unlimited-access roads, both classi- fied as "collector" roads. These roads were bordered by subdivision lots ac- cessed by direct driveways. Because Rucci's lot was narrow, roadway access by an interior subdivision road was not possible. Instead, each lot was. to have direct drive, way access to the existing collector roadway. The township denied Rucci's permit appli%tions. U, inder the local zoning ordinance, only one street, driveway, or point of access was permitted from a subdivision onto an arterial or collector street. Rucci sued, and the court ruled in favor of the township. Rucci appealed, arguing the ordinance Was illegal, and it violated his equal protection fights. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance was legal and rational. Because the ordinance did not burden a fundamental fight or involve the. classification of a suspect ciasa, it withstood an equal protection challenge if it was reasonable and bore a rational relationship to a permissible state objective. The township claimed the ordinance was designed to improve traffic safety. Limiting dfiv~way access tO collector and arterial roads was a logical way to improve traffic safety and circulation because it restricted the number of access points from which vehicles could approach the heavily traveled roads. Rucci had to prove the township treated him differently from similarly situ- ated landowners without any reasonable basis. Although Rucci alleged his property was practically surrounded by single-family subdivisions, he never stated that any subdivision had more than one point of vehicle access to the collector roadway. Nowhere in the complaint did Rucci identify any other land- owner who subdivided property and nonetheless was Permitted more than one vehicle access point to a collector or artefial road. Without identifying another subdivision with multiple vehicle access points to a collector or arterial road, Rucci failed to establish he was similarly situated, yet treated differently by the township... xee also: Gary v. Air Group Inc., 397 F. 3d 183 (2005). 2005 Qu~nlan Publishing Group, Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 103