Laserfiche WebLink
120 <br /> <br />Page 6 -- November 25, 2005 <br /> <br />and violated the Due Process Clause· level. <br />T~e township's enactment o[ the zoning ordinance did not rise to ~ancial <br />There was no evidence that individual roe. tubers of the board enjoyed <br />gain from the ordinance or that the rezomng decision worked to their personal <br />advantages. Nor was there afiy suggestion that ivlaple suffered an infringe- <br />ment of a fundamental fight as a result of the township's action. <br /> · _ . ' 'no dispute. Maple <br /> The court determined that this was a mn-of the rmll zorn = <br /> asserted that the ordinance was irrational in light of land-use goals, was <br /> passed "in the dark" and without a "deliberative process," and was targeted <br /> selectively at Maple to keep the company from making beneficial use of its <br /> property. But, even if true, these things would not shock the conscience. The <br /> officials' conduct may have been "unfair" or "improper" from Maple's per- <br /> spective, but there was no evidence of the patently egregious behavior rec- <br /> ognized in prior cases. <br /> see also: United Artists Theatre Circuit Inc. v. Township of Warrington, 316 <br /> F. 3d 392 (2003). <br /> see also: Boyanowski v. Capital Are~ 1~ntermediare Unit, 215 F.3d 396 (2000). <br /> Ordinance ~ New underground storage tanks not allowed in water <br /> resource protection area <br /> Older tanks grandfathered in <br /> Citation: Wawa lnc. v. Government of New Castle County, U.S. District Court <br /> for the District of Delaware, No. 04-322-KAJ (2005) <br /> <br />DELAWARE (10/13/05) --Wawa lac. owned and operated conven/ence stores <br />that also sold gasoline. Castle County to irlstall aa underg'round <br /> Wawa sought permission from New <br />storage tank (UST) at one of its sites that was not then selling gasoline. <br /> The site was in a water resource protection area, wh/ch under a county <br /> ordinance, prohibited the installation of any new USTs. However, already ex.isl- <br /> ing USTs were grandfathered uses. <br /> The county ultimately refused to give Wawa permission to install the <br /> new UST. <br /> Wawa sued, arguing that if the county banned any USTs, it had to ban <br /> all USTs. <br /> DECISION: Judgment in l'avor of the county. <br /> Wawa did not prove that grandfathering existing USTs was not rationally <br /> related to a legitimate government interest. <br /> Grandfathering existing uses often passed rational basis review because it <br /> protected the reliance interests of property owners whose uses were legal <br /> when the government acted. , <br /> Here, the county pursued legitimate purposes -- protecting the county s <br /> © 2005 Guinlan pub[isB~ng Group. Any reproductton ~s promb~ted. For more inlorrnation ptease call (617} 542-004fl, <br /> <br /> <br />