Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/02/2006

Home

( Z.B. October 10, 2006 - Page 3 close. Although the 8th Circuit noted that the statute might produce this effect, it was not specific enough to "directly advance" the state's interest. Further, the 8th Circuit found that the statute - which threatened criminal prosecution - restricted more speech than was necessary to advance the state's goals. For example, under the statute's exception, an affected business within one mile of a highway could not erect an exterior sign advertising gas prices or a nationally known beverage without being subject to criminal prosecution. The state had the burden of justifying the challenged restriction, and it failed to show that a less restrictive regulation would not have adequately advanced its interests. see also: Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp v. Public Servo Comm'n, 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.O. 2343, 65 L.Ed~2d 341 (1980). Standing - Owner wants to develop property formerly restricted as residential under urban renewal agreement Court says neighboring property owner has no standing to oppose development Citation: Taliaferro v. Darby Township Zoning Board, 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No; 05-2253 (2006) The 3rd U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania; and the Virgin Islands. PENNSYLVANIA (08/1 0/06) - Taliaferro was a property owner in Darby Town- slJip. The township had acquired a parcel ofland abutting his property in 1960. In 1967 - as part of an urban renewal plan - the Delaware County Redevelop- ment Authority reached an agreement with ci: developer for the land to be used for residential purposes only. The agreement applied to the devel?per and all of its successors and expired in 1980.. The property changed hands many times without being developed. In 2002, Healy bought the prope~y and wanted to construct an 800-unit storage facility on the site. Although the covenant that restricted the land's use had expired, the property was located in a district that. was zoned residential, so Healy applied for a variance. Taliaferro opposed the variance throughout the hearing process. Ultimately, the township's zoiring board approved the variance. Taliaferro appealed the board's decision to court, but the decision was affirmed. . Taliaferro filed a separate lawsuit against the board, the township, Healy, and the redevelopment authority, claiming that the township failed to deliver benefits related to the residential development of the property promised in the urban renewal plan. Further, Taliaferro alleged that the township and the rede- velopment authority had intentionally prevented black homeowners from be- ing able to develop the property residentially so as to keep black residents from growing in number and gaining political influence. Taliaferro also argued that his property would be devalued by the construc- @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 41