Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

The case concerned property owners who sought approval from the City of Cannon Beach to build a house on an oceanfront lot and to develop an adjacent public right-of-way to provide vehicular access. Both the lot and the right-of-way are located in a landslide hazard zone, and the city code imposes restrictions requiring applicants to demonstrate either the absence of geologic hazard or that proposed engineering methods will eliminate or minimize the hazard. The dispute arose because a state statute requires local standards regulating the “development of housing” to be “clear and objective,” while the city’s geologic hazard standard includes a subjective component.After initial conditional approval, the city ultimately denied both applications—one for the house and one for the road—based on grounds unrelated to geologic hazards. However, it did not apply its geologic hazards standards to either application, reasoning that the “clear and objective” statutory requirement precluded it from applying subjective standards to the housing development. Both parties appealed to the Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which agreed with the city’s interpretation and held that the statute preempted application of the geologic hazard standards to the road development. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed LUBA’s decision in part, holding that the “clear and objective standards” requirement did not prevent the city from applying its geologic hazard standards to the application to develop a public road.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals. The court held that the statutory requirement of “clear and objective” standards for “the development of housing” applies only to the housing itself, not to the development of a public road on an adjacent public right-of-way, unless the city requires the road development as a condition of approving housing. The city and LUBA’s interpretation was incorrect, and the case was remanded to LUBA for further proceedings. View "Roberts v. City of Cannon Beach" on Justia Law

Appellants, owners of rowhouses abutting a proposed residential development in Washington, D.C., challenged the actions of the D.C. Zoning Commission regarding the approval of a Design Review application submitted by a developer. Their properties shared an easement with the development site, and a prior agreement in 2017 and a subsequent one in 2022 set the terms of access. During the Commission’s public hearing, both Appellants and Developer discussed the easement, with Developer assuring that the agreement was signed, though not yet recorded. Appellants voiced concerns about the easement’s finality and requested further review.After the Commission approved the Design Review application and issued its Order of Approval, Appellants pursued separate legal actions against the Developer, which were dismissed following the new easement agreement. Subsequently, Appellants filed a complaint against the District of Columbia in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, claiming violations of their substantive due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. They alleged the Commission deliberately ignored statutory requirements by failing to collect their signatures for the application and by neglecting to properly investigate the easement’s final status.The Superior Court dismissed the complaint, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to Appellants’ failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and also found that Appellants failed to state a viable due process claim. On appeal, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined that dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was improper, as exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a jurisdictional requirement. However, the Court affirmed the dismissal for failure to state a claim, concluding that Appellants’ allegations amounted at most to negligence, not the egregious conduct required for a substantive due process violation. The judgment of the Superior Court was affirmed. View "Samaddar, DDS v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

A company owned a vacant shopping center located within a city. The city repeatedly identified the property as blighted and unsafe, urging the owner to submit an abatement plan and later ordering the property to be boarded up and fenced. Over time, city officials considered and ultimately planned for the demolition of the shopping center by means of a controlled burn, citing concerns over trespassing and public safety. The owner neither expressly agreed to the controlled burn nor provided an alternative abatement plan. The city proceeded with the demolition by fire, after notifying the owner, and later removed the resulting debris.The owner filed suit in the Circuit Court of the City of Hopewell, asserting claims against the city and contractors for intentional trespass, statutory business conspiracy, tortious interference with a business expectancy, waste, and a takings claim under the Virginia Constitution. The owner also sought declaratory relief concerning costs and penalties imposed by the city. The city raised sovereign immunity as a defense, filing a plea in bar to dismiss all claims except the takings claim. The Circuit Court denied the plea in bar, finding it could not determine whether the city’s actions were within its governmental function. The city then pursued an interlocutory appeal.The Supreme Court of Virginia reviewed the denial of the plea in bar de novo, based on the pleadings and exhibits. It held that the city’s actions in demolishing the shopping center constituted a governmental function—blight abatement—which is protected by sovereign immunity, even if the city had additional motives or failed to comply with all statutory requirements. The court therefore reversed the circuit court’s judgment, holding the city immune from all tort and statutory claims, as well as most declaratory relief sought, but not from the constitutional takings claim. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the takings claim and claims involving third parties. View "City of Hopewell v. Shree Arihant Motel, Inc." on Justia Law

The case concerns a property dispute in Hampstead, New Hampshire, where the owners of a non-conforming lakefront cottage sought a special exception from the zoning ordinance to add a second story to their seasonal residence. Because their lot is smaller than what the ordinance requires and lacks sufficient frontage, any alteration required a special exception from the Town’s Zoning Board of Adjustment. The owners applied for the exception, and after a hearing where they described their plans but did not address how their proposal met the ordinance’s criteria, the Zoning Board granted the exception. The petitioner, an abutter whose property faces the cottage across the road, objected that the addition would block her lake view and decrease her property value, and she introduced photographic evidence.After the Zoning Board of Adjustment granted the exception without making specific written findings, the petitioner requested a rehearing, which was denied. She then appealed to the New Hampshire Housing Appeals Board, arguing that the applicants failed to demonstrate compliance with the special exception criteria, specifically the requirement that the project not diminish surrounding property values. The Housing Appeals Board affirmed the Zoning Board’s decision, concluding that it was not unreasonable or unlawful.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and held that the applicants did not meet their burden of proof to show their addition would not diminish surrounding property values, as required by the zoning ordinance. The court found that the evidence presented by the applicants was insufficient, and the Zoning Board’s implicit finding to the contrary was not supported by the record. The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reversed the Housing Appeals Board’s decision and remanded the case with instructions to reverse the Zoning Board’s grant of the special exception. View "Appeal of Murray" on Justia Law

Sunpin Energy Services, LLC and Ralph P. Lapinkas, Jr. sought to construct a large-scale ground-mounted solar energy system on a parcel of undeveloped, mostly forested land in Petersham, Massachusetts. Because the proposed site was outside the town’s designated solar electric overlay district, Sunpin applied for a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The project would require clearing trees from approximately 14.3 acres, and Sunpin secured an order of conditions from the town conservation commission under the Wetlands Protection Act. The permit application was denied after one of three board members voted against it, citing concerns about deforestation and referencing the town’s bylaw goals of maintaining the town’s beauty and proper land use.The plaintiffs challenged the board’s denial in the Land Court Department. The Land Court judge granted summary judgment in favor of the board, concluding that the board member properly applied the zoning bylaw criteria, including the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, and concerns about tree removal. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Massachusetts Appeals Court vacated the judgment, holding that the board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, improperly favoring forest preservation over solar energy siting and relying on speculation about future development.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case and held that, under the Dover Amendment’s solar provision (G. L. c. 40A, § 3, ninth paragraph), municipalities must provide reasonable opportunities for solar energy systems and may not deny a special permit unless it is necessary to protect public health, safety, or welfare. The Court found that the denial, based on general concerns about tree cutting, amounted to a blanket prohibition in a town that is ninety-seven percent forested, which was improper. The Court vacated the Land Court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Sunpin Energy Services, LLC v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Petersham" on Justia Law

Several property owners and ranching entities challenged amendments adopted in 2023 by the Albany County Board of County Commissioners to the Aquifer Protection Overlay Zone (APOZ) regulations. The Casper Aquifer, which supplies drinking water to many residents of Albany County and the City of Laramie, had been the subject of prior regulatory efforts. The 2023 amendments included a 35-acre minimum lot size requirement and revised procedures for changing the APOZ boundaries. Appellants argued that the Board exceeded its authority, violated equal protection guarantees, and acted arbitrarily and capriciously in enacting the amendments.Previously, in Bienz v. Board of County Commissioners, County of Albany, 2024 WY 102 (Bienz I), the Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed whether amendments to the APOZ regulations were subject to direct judicial review under the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act (WAPA). The district court had concluded it lacked jurisdiction, finding the Board's actions legislative and not reviewable under the WAPA. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that legislative agency actions are reviewable, and remanded the case for the district court to consider the merits. While litigation was pending, the Board further amended the APOZ regulations, requiring the district court to identify which amendments remained at issue. The district court ultimately upheld the Board’s authority and the amendments.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming addressed whether the Board exceeded its authority, whether the amendment procedures violated equal protection, and whether the arbitrary and capricious standard applied to agency legislative action. The Court held the Board acted within its statutory authority in protecting the Casper Aquifer, the distinct procedures for overlay zone amendments did not violate equal protection guarantees, and agency legislative actions are subject to the arbitrary and capricious standard. It concluded the 2023 APOZ amendments, including the 35-acre minimum lot size, were not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law, and affirmed the district court’s decision. View "Warren Livestock, LLC v. Board of County Commissione" on Justia Law

A developer applied to the zoning board of a New Jersey township for a use variance to construct a senior living facility on a residentially-zoned eight-acre property. The proposed development, which included independent, assisted living, and memory care units, was undisputedly an “inherently beneficial use” as defined by the state’s Municipal Land Use Law. The application also sought several bulk variances. The planning board had previously declined to include the property in a newly created Senior Housing Overlay Zone, following public opposition and a policy goal of preserving farmland and open space. After a multi-day hearing, the zoning board denied the variance, finding that the detrimental impact on the zoning plan and ordinance, including concerns about density, impervious coverage, drainage, traffic, and prior zoning decisions, outweighed the public benefits of the proposed use.The developers challenged the denial in the Superior Court, Law Division, which reversed the board’s decision, finding insufficient evidence of substantial negative impact and remanding for the imposition of reasonable conditions, but barring reduction in the number of units. The Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the zoning and master plan did not specifically preclude the use, and that the board’s concerns did not justify denial under the deferential review standard.The Supreme Court of New Jersey reviewed the case to clarify the standard for granting use variances for inherently beneficial uses after a 1997 legislative amendment to the Municipal Land Use Law. The Court held that the fourth step of the Sica v. Board of Adjustment of Wall test must be revised: before balancing positive and negative criteria, the zoning board must now specifically determine whether the applicant has shown that the variance “will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zoning plan and zoning ordinance.” The Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division’s judgment and remanded for application of the revised standard. View "Monarch Communities, LLC v. Township of Montville" on Justia Law

A group of homeowners and their associations opposed amendments to a planned unit development in Baltimore City, actively communicating their disapproval to the Planning Commission. After the Commission approved the amendments, the developer filed suit against the homeowners and associations, seeking damages and alleging breach of contract and tortious interference. The homeowners and associations, believing the suit to be a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), moved to dismiss under Maryland’s anti-SLAPP statute, Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-807. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City found the lawsuit was a SLAPP and dismissed it, and the Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed the dismissal, citing evidence that the suit was intended to deter the homeowners from exercising their rights.Two years after the Appellate Court affirmed the SLAPP dismissal, the homeowners and associations filed a class action for malicious use of process against the developer, its law firm, and its attorney. They alleged unique injuries, including emotional distress, intimidation, diminished property values, and burdensome discovery demands. The Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiffs had not pleaded the “special injury” required for malicious use of process. The Appellate Court of Maryland affirmed, holding that the alleged injuries were typical of litigation and not “special” as required by Maryland law.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim for malicious use of process because they did not plead a special injury. The Court clarified that litigation expenses, temporary property value diminution, emotional distress, and chilling of constitutional rights are not special injuries under Maryland law. The Court also declined to adopt a rule that victims of a SLAPP inherently satisfy the special-injury requirement. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Court. View "Millrace Condo. v. Shapiro Sher etc., PA" on Justia Law

A special independent recreation district was established in 2018 to manage and improve recreational facilities within a residential community, including a country club and golf course. In 2019, the district issued $24 million in bonds to purchase and maintain these facilities, pursuant to a referendum and a master trust indenture. A provision in the first supplemental indenture for the 2019 bonds included bracketed language suggesting that no further bonds would be issued, except for certain purposes. However, in 2023, the district's Board proposed a new $21 million bond issue to fund additional improvements, which was approved by a majority of residents in a 2024 referendum. The Board subsequently amended the 2019 indenture, clarifying that the bracketed language was never formally adopted and authorized the new bonds.In the Twelfth Judicial Circuit Court for Manatee County, a resident who moved into the district in 2021 challenged the district’s authority to issue the new bonds, arguing that the language in the 2019 indenture barred further bond issues, and questioned whether the special assessments to repay the bonds provided sufficient special benefit to the properties. He also raised due process concerns about the proceedings. The circuit court admitted evidence, including expert testimony on property value benefits, and found for the district, validating the 2024 bond issue. The court found the district had authority to issue the bonds and that the special benefits exceeded the debt burden.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the circuit court’s judgment. The Court held that the district had statutory and referendum-based authority to issue the 2024 bonds, that the Board properly clarified and amended the indenture, and that legislative findings and expert testimony supported the conclusion that the special assessments conferred a special benefit. The Court also found no due process violation. View "Matt v. State of Florida" on Justia Law

Chip and Anne Andrews applied to the Town of Kittery for approval of a conservation subdivision. Their application sought waivers from certain general street design and construction standards, such as requirements for right-of-way width, street length, street grade, and sidewalk width, as outlined in the town’s Land Use and Development Code. The Planning Board held several hearings, received public input, and ultimately granted the requested waivers and approved the subdivision, finding the waivers met the ordinance’s requirements and did not adversely affect public health, safety, the natural environment, or general welfare. Judith Andrews, a neighboring landowner, opposed the waivers, arguing that only the Board of Appeals could grant such relief because, in her view, the street standards functioned as zoning requirements.After the Planning Board’s decision, Judith Andrews sought judicial review in the Maine Superior Court (York County). The court affirmed the Planning Board’s decision, concluding that the street standards at issue were not zoning requirements, but rather subdivision standards that the Planning Board was authorized to waive under the Code. The Superior Court found that the Board acted within its delegated authority and that no variance from the Board of Appeals was required.On further appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the Planning Board’s decision directly, as the trial court had acted in an appellate capacity. The Supreme Judicial Court held that the general street standards in the Code were not zoning requirements, but rather general, town-wide subdivision standards, and therefore could be waived by the Planning Board under its express authority. The Court distinguished these standards from zone-specific zoning requirements, clarified that there was no violation of state law, and affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Andrews v. Town of Kittery" on Justia Law