Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2006

Home

(-. Z.B. IVlarch I0, 2006--Page 3 occupied, that met the conditions of the ordinances. However, the existence of lots, whether available to him or not, was enough to establish that there was no preju- dice against gun dealerships. The city had only to offer possible locations that met the requirements; they did not have to guarantee anything beyond that. This, combined with the safety issue, established that the city's regulations on gun retailers did not violate due process. see also: Carter v. Arkansas, 392 E3d 965 (2004). see also: City ofRenton v. Playtime Theatres £nc., 89 L.Ed. 2d 29 (1986). Equal Protection-- Developer fails to get approval for apartment project City commission agrees to let rivM developer continue with his projects daring same period Citation: Campbell v. Rainbow City, llth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 04-11409 (2006) The llth U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over ~labama, Florida, and Georgia. ALABAMA (01/06/06) -- Campbell bought land within Rainbow City. He in- tended io build a large apmtment complex on ~he property, with between 162 and 180 units. When Campbell applied for the necessary permits, the city planning com- mission decided to table the matter for discussion. Campbell went before the commission several more times with variations on the original plan. However, he never received commission approval. During this same period, the commission approved two apartment projects of another developer, Echols. Campbell sued, arguing his equal prOtection rights were violated because he wasn't treated similarly to other developers. The court ruled in his favor. The city appealed, arguing Campbell's constitutional fights were not vio- lated because he was in fact treated similarly to Echols. DECISION: Reversed. While Echols' developments were eventually granted tentative approval and Campbell's was not, the commission's treatment of the parties was similar. Echols testified that he had to attend six or seven commission meetings prior to getting approval for his development on Sixth Street. In regard to his 'development on Brown Street, Echols stated that he thought he had attended more than two commission meetings. At those meetings where he did not get approval, Echols was not denied tentative approval; rather, the board took no action and tabled the matter for more discussion. Echols was required to come back to subsequent meetings and eventually all outstanding issues were resolved. ,additionally, Echol$' development~ were smaller than Campbell's much grander desi~ma -- comprising less than I0 units each -- and the nature of Echols' presents- @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduchon is prohibited. For more informalion please carl (617] 542-90~8. 101