3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Due Process, Takings and Section 1983 Claims Arising from Township’s Passage of Zoning Ordinance

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

Plaintiff Peter Sauers appealed an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismissing his Amended Complaint against Lower Southampton Township. In his Amended Complaint, Sauers challenged a zoning ordinance and claimed that he “will suffer a severe diminution in value and quiet enjoyment of his home should the subject rezoning/spot zoning result in the proposed subject development with the use of his small residential street.” He also alleged that a public hearing was not held in connection with the property at issue. The District Court held that Sauers had failed to state a claim for relief.

As to Sauers’ due process claims, the District Court ruled that Sauers did not state a cognizable procedural due process claim because public records provided by the Township established that it gave notice of its proposed zoning ordinance in a local newspaper and held public hearings. On appeal, Sauers asserted that the District Court erred in addressing whether the Township gave notice of the zoning ordinance because he had claimed that his rights were violated by the Township’s later decision to grant zoning variances to property owners without public notice. Here, however, Sauers’ Amended Complaint failed to mention zoning variances. Accordingly, the court found the Amended Complaint did not contain sufficient factual matter to state a claim. As Sauers already had an opportunity to amend his complaint, the court held that further amendment would have been futile.

Sauers next contended that the District Court erred in dismissing his civil rights claim. While Sauers did not argue that he stated a retaliation claim, he contended that his § 1983 action should not have been dismissed because he alleged that his rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments had been abridged. The court determined that Sauers’ Fourteenth Amendment claims were brought in other counts, and District Court considered his Fifth Amendment Takings Clause claim separately.

Finally, Sauers argued that the District Court erred in dismissing his Takings Clause claim. Specifically, Sauers contended that the Township’s rezoning of neighboring property and authorization of development lowered the value of his property and constitutes a “taking,” and that his property’s value was lowered without the payment of just compensation. Despite this, the court held that Sauers failed to allege this claim in his Amended Complaint, which made only a passing reference to a takings claim and contained few factual allegations. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the District Court.

Sauers v Lower Southampton Township, 722 Fed. App. 255 (3rd Cir. 1/9/2018)