5000 Warrington, Part 4
The 5000 Warrington spot zoning litigation is almost over. But my blog posts about it aren’t! Previous blogs on this topic here, here, and here.
Trial is scheduled to begin on June 2nd. The City filed a Motion for Summary Judgment in March. There was some good stuff in the plaintiff’s response. The full documents are embedded at the bottom of the post.
For the non-lawyers reading this: a Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) is a motion often filed after the close of discovery and before trial that seeks to wholly resolve some or all issues in the case. The standard is: even if you take all disputed facts in favor of the non-moving party, the movant should win as a matter of law. If the Court grants the MSJ, there won’t be a trial. But the decision on the MSJ could be appealed to Commonwealth Court. If the MSJ is denied, that basically means the court thinks there are disputed facts that need to be resolved at trial. Dispositive motions are a good place to learn about a case because they summarize all of the facts/discovery in a case and narrow down the legal issues.
The City made two arguments in its MSJ:
(1) the zoning bills actually brought 5000 Warrington into conformity with the surrounding properties so it isn’t spot zoning, and
(2) plaintiff doesn’t have standing to bring this case because there is no evidence she is harmed by the passage of the zoning bills.
Spot zoning is “the singling out of one lot or a small area for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character, for the economic benefit of the owner of that lot or to his economic detriment…” Appeal of Mulac, 210 A.2d 275, 277 (1965). Spot zoning is “unreasonable or arbitrary classification” with no reasonable basis for the differential zoning. However, zoning legislation is presumptively valid and the burden to prove spot zoning is on the challenger.
Here, Bill 230447 rezoned 5000 Warrington from I-2 (Industrial) to RMX-3 (Residential Mixed-use). And Bill 230443 created a new “Warrington Affordable Housing Overlay District”. The City’s arguing that the change from I-2 to RMX-3 brings 5000 Warrington into conformity with the rest of the neighborhood. However, in their response, Plaintiff pointed out that the zoning legislation included sunset provisions which would automatically revert the zoning to I-2 in a few years if the project didn’t pan out. So it’s not really permanently bringing the zoning into conformity with the rest of the neighborhood.
The City’s second argument, on standing, is that plaintiff only states speculative future harm - that her house around the corner may depreciate in value after this project is completed. Plaintiff’s response was that she lives .08 miles away (very close!) and if the proposed project is built, she’ll be able to see the high rise building from her house (the horror!) and “will likely experience parking issues in an area already strained for parking” and increase traffic (lol cry more). I think the case law is on her side on this though, you don’t have to establish current loss to have standing.
I don’t know when the Court will rule on this. The only time I ever won summary judgment in a Philadelphia case, we got the ruling the Monday morning trial was supposed to begin (after spending all day Friday the week before picking a jury…). I’ll keep checking the docket periodically between now and June 2!!
Now, on to some excerpts from the exhibits to Plaintiff’s response, aka all the really interesting stuff. One of Plaintiff’s exhibits in her MSJ response was this fact sheet from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission:
Here’s an email from Andrew Goodman that was produced as an exhibit - CM Gauthier’s legislative aide said that they have to rezone 5000 Warrington because the project’s variance was appealed, and they don’t have time to re-do any community engagement. He also admits that the 100 parking spots is a bad idea and it was just done to appease near neighbors.
What’s the definition of a near neighbor? I live less than ½ a mile from here and I actually hate the idea of them adding a giant parking lot here.
The Planning Commission found that the proposed zoning overlay is “not in alignment with the City’s comprehensive plan” and called the project’s design an issue of “environmental justice.” The giant surface parking lot and reduced open/green space are not great!
The developer’s lawyer was wary of spot zoning arguments from the get go.