CMR DN CORP and Marina Towers v. City of Philadelphia
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 949
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- Waterfront owns a 5.3-acre site in the Central Riverfront District and pursued a World Trade Center–type project for decades.
- The 2006 March Ordinance extended Old City Overlay height (65 ft) and width (70 ft) limits to Waterfront’s site.
- In 2010 the City rescinded the height restriction for Waterfront, prompting mootness disputes and new width-related challenges.
- Waterfront sought to amend to challenge the width restriction and a 2009 Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay (CRO) ordinance as unconstitutional.
- District Court held the height restriction moot, denied amendment on width, and granted summary judgment against Waterfront on CRO challenges and related state-law claims.
- On appeal, Waterfront argues mootness does not bar its damages claims, seeks reversal on CRO provisions, and contests promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance theories.
- The Third Circuit affirms, finding no reversible error in mootness rulings, amendment denial, CRO validity, and absence of viable promissory estoppel claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of damages and declaratory relief for facial challenge | Waterfront contends damages/declaratory relief remain viable after height rescission. | City argues mootness applies to all live claims. | Damages/declaratory relief not available for facial challenge after mootness ruling. |
| Allowing amendment to challenge width restriction | Waterfront sought to add width restriction challenge late, without prejudice. | District Court acted within discretion to deny undue-delay amendment. | District Court did not abuse discretion in denying amendment. |
| Constitutionality of CRO and CRO Regulations (vagueness) | CRO language vague; delegations to Planning Commission unconstitutional. | CRO provides objective standards; delegation is rational. | CRO and CRO Regulations not unconstitutionally vague; no improper delegation. |
| Promissory estoppel/detrimental reliance claims | City supposedly made promises sustaining Waterfront’s project, justifying estoppel. | Promissory estoppel requires concrete promises; City statements insufficient. | District Court properly granted summary judgment on these state-law claims. |
| Scope of remedies for facial challenges to zoning laws | Damages can remedy facial constitutional violations. | Facial challenges typically yield injunctive/declaratory relief, not damages. | Damages not available for facial due process/equal protection/challenge to zoning law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2001) (damages available only if a viable remedial theory exists)
- Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007) (damages for facial challenges not generally available in zoning cases)
- Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (finality/ripe-claim rule for challenges to zoning laws)
- Taylor Inv., Ltd. v. Upper Darby Twp., 983 F.2d 1285 (3d Cir. 1993) (applies finality rule to procedural due process/equal protection challenges)
- County Concrete Corp. v. Township of Roxbury, 442 F.3d 159 (3d Cir. 2006) (ripe/relief framework for challenges to targeted zoning regulations)