Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/12/2012

Home

May 25, 2012 1 Volume 6 J No. 10 Zoning Bulletin street parking regulations was included in the authority to regulate the use of land and open spaces. Thus, the statute and charter applied to General Ordinance 21 as that ordinance regulated open spaces. As to the uniformity required by the statute and charter "for each class of buildings throughout any district," the City had contended that absentee - owners were in a different "class" from owner -occupied properties and, ac- cordingly, did not have to be regulated uniformly. The court again disagreed. It found that contention lacked merit inasmuch as "[t]he uniformity require- ment [was] intended to assure property holders that all owners in the same district [would] be treated alike and that there [would] be no improper discrimination." The court found General Ordinance 21 treated buildings within the same class differently based solely on the status of the property owner (i.e., absentee property owners as opposed to owners who occupy the property). The court said that "[e]ven though such a distinction may be constitutionally valid, it [was] invalid under the uniformity requirements of the General City Law and the City of Syracuse Charter." The court concluded by declaring Ordinance 21 invalid. Case Note: The Owners had also argued that the City had violated their constitutional due process rights in adopting the ordinances. The appellate court held that the City was entitled to judgment as a matter of law on these constitutional due process rights claims. The court found that the ordinances were "reasonably related to the legitimate governmen- tal purposes of eliminating traffic congestion due to on -street parking . . . and served to enhance traffic safety by removing cars from the [City's] streets." Case Note: The Owners had also argued that the City failed to comply with City law when the City's Common Council adopted General Ordinance 21 and General Ordinance 20. General Ordinance 20 established, among other things, the amount of space required for workable parking spaces and the maximum square footage allowed for open surface parking areas for one- and two-family residences. The Owners had argued that adop- tion of these ordinances on the same day on which they were introduced without unan- imous consent violated Second Class Cities Law § 35. That law provided that no ordinance shall be passed by the common council on the same day it is introduced, except by unanimous consent. The court agreed with the Owners, finding there was not the requisite unanimous consent here in the passage of the ordinances. The court also declared General Ordinance 20 invalid. Zoning News from Around the Nation CALIFORNIA The state Assembly's Public Safety Committee has passed through legisla- 10 ©2012 Thomson Reuters