Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006

Home

,~ Z.B. November 25, 2005 m Page 5 view was "review of the whole record to determine if there [was] substantial competent and mater/al evidence" to support the board, the court proceeded to make its own 25 findings of fact regarding the issues before the board and. the evidence presented by the parties. Rather than testing the whole record, the lower court incorrectly entered separate findings of fact, which differed in number and, in some cases, in substance from the findings of fact entered by the board. see also: Mann Media Inc. v. Randolph County Planning Board, 565 S.E. 2d 9 (2002). see also: North Carolina Department of Environment & Nat*tral Resources v. Carroll, 599 S.E. 2d 888 (2004). Ordinance -- Developer claims ordinance violates its due process rights Delay in fighting ordinance causes it to lose property Citation: Maple Properties Inc. v. Township of Upper Providence, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-4604 (2005) The 3rd U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the Virgin Islands. PENNSYLVANIA (10/17/05) -- Maple Properties Inc. wanted to build a retail store on a piece of property in which it had an equitable interest. It submitted · development plans with the township, but they were rejected for noncompli- ance with certain procedural requirements. Dur/ng this time, the Township Zoning Hearing Board rezoned the property to disallow retail stores due to traffic concerns. Maple challenged the new ordinance, ultimately succeeding because the ordinance had failed to fulfill certain procedural obligations and deadlines. However, while Maple was contesting the ordinance, the sale of agreement governing Maple's equitable interest expired, and the land owner sold the property to another developer. Maple sued, and the court ruled in favor of the township. Maple appealed, arguing that the board's decision regarding the ordinance violated its due process rights because there were not enough procedures in place to protect developers like Maple. DECISION:Affirmed. This disagreement was normal in planning disputes. Some land-use decisions were so egregious that no amount of proce- dures could honor and restore an individual's constitutional property rights. However, these situations were often typified by corruption, self-dealing, or an infringement on other fundamental individual liberties, resulting in harms that could not be rectified by pre- or post-deprivation proceedings. Official actions that fell within this category ~'shock[ed] the conscience" ~c~ 2005 Qumlan Publishing Group· Any reproduction is prohibited. For more iniormation please caJl (617) 542-0048.