100 likes | 708 Vues
Udell v Haas 235 N E2d 897 (1968). The mockery of Ad Hocery?. Facts . . . Beginning in 1938, subject property was zoned for business. Parcel assembled in 1951, partly used as a restaurant. 1960, owner files papers with City to develop: Bowling alley Discount store (big box).
E N D
Udell v Haas235 N E2d 897 (1968) The mockery of Ad Hocery?
Facts . . . • Beginning in 1938, subject property was zoned for business. • Parcel assembled in 1951, partly used as a restaurant. • 1960, owner files papers with City to develop: • Bowling alley • Discount store (big box)
That same night the planning board recommends rezoning the area residential. • WHY? A severe traffic problem. • Village rezones the property to residential based on the “feeling of the Village that it does not want extensive business in the area.”
“We have concluded that the rezoning was discriminatory and that is was not done ‘in accordance with [the] comprehensive plan . . ..” • “[S]ound zoning principles were not followed in this case, and the root cause of this failure was a misunderstanding of the nature of zoning and, even more importantly, of its relationship to the statutory requirement that it be ‘in accordance with a comprehensive plan.”