Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/1997

Home

Page 2 - July 10, 1997 Z.B. Historic District - Can'city choose between historical preservation and educational uses? Trustees of Union College v. Members of the Schenectady City Council, 656 N.Y.S.2d 425 (New York) 1997 Union College owned several properties in the city of Schenectady, N.Y. In 1978, the city passed an ordinance establishing a single-family historic district in an area that included the college's properties. One of the ordinance's provisions permitted, as special uses, educational, religious, and philanthropic institutions in the new district. From 1978 to 1984, the city allowed the college to use its properties for educational purposes. In 1984, the city adopted a new city code for the historic district, limiting permitted uses to single-family dwellings and restricting special-permit uses to public utilities, substations, and structures. In 1992, the college applied for a zoning amendment to change the city code to include educational institutions as a special-permit use in the district. Three years later, the college abandoned its application and asked a court to declare the city code unconstitutional. The college asked for judgment without a trial. The Schenectady City Council also asked for judgment without a trial, arguing the college failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The court granted the college judgment without a trial, finding the city exceeded the scope of its authority by adopting the code. The city council appealed, defending the code's constitutionality and claiming its actions were consistent with historic preservation purposes, a justifiable aim. It also claimed its interest in historical preservation outweighed the college's interest in the properties' educational use. DECISION: Affirmed. The city code was unconstitutional. The issue was whether the city code provided any. mechanism to allow legitimate, competing interests to be balanced against each other - in this case, to determine whether the proposed educational use was contrary to the public health, safety, or welfare, The city didn't. Basically, by enacting the provisions, the city pitted the interests of historical preservation against educational uses. But by excluding educational uses from special-permit consideration, the city didn't give those competing forces a level playing field. The college didn't have an opportunity to prove that educational uses were consistent with the public welfare. The college could request a variance or apply for a zoning amendment, but these avenues were not enough to remedy the code's unconstitutionality. '14 Variance - Is synagogue only plausible use for residential property? Anderson v. Witt, 692 A.2d 292 (Pennsylvania) 1997 In Philadelphia, the Congregation Mishkan Shalom wanted to covert a residential building into a synagogue. The congregation also planned to build a