Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

A developer sought approval to build a solar farm in Spencer County, Indiana, parts of which would be located both within the Town of Grandview and within its two-mile extraterritorial jurisdiction (“ETJ”) fringe. The Town of Grandview granted a special exception approval for the project, despite its comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance only covering land within the town’s corporate limits and not properly providing for ETJ authority. Years later, landowners adjacent to the proposed solar farm challenged the Town’s approval, arguing it was void because the Town lacked authority over the ETJ at the time the approval was granted.Initially, Grandview Solar obtained approvals from both the Town and County, and invested millions into the project. When the Town later refused to issue an improvement location permit due to public opposition, Grandview Solar sued, leading to a preliminary injunction directing the Town to issue the permit. After settlement and dismissal of that suit, the landowners filed a new declaratory judgment complaint. The Spencer Circuit Court granted summary judgment to the Town and Grandview Solar. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed, holding the special exception approval was “ultra vires and void,” subject to collateral attack at any time.The Indiana Supreme Court, on transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion and affirmed the trial court. The Court held that the Town’s failure to properly provide for ETJ authority before granting the special exception rendered the approval voidable, not void. Because Indiana’s enabling statutes authorized the Town to provide for ETJ and grant special exceptions, any objections had to be raised within the statutory 30-day review window. The landowners’ late challenge constituted an impermissible collateral attack. The Court clarified that only actions truly outside statutory and ordinance authority are void and subject to collateral attack; errors within general authority are merely voidable. View "Wike v. Grandview Solar Project LLC" on Justia Law

A group of registered voters in Massachusetts challenged the Attorney General’s certification of an initiative petition proposing to limit annual rent increases for residential properties. The petition would repeal the Statewide ban on rent control and instead institute a cap on rent increases, but it expressly exempted certain types of properties, including those in facilities operated solely for religious, educational, or nonprofit purposes. The Attorney General had certified that the petition did not contain excluded matters, issued the required summary, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth prepared the petition for circulation and potential inclusion on the November 2026 ballot after sufficient signatures.The plaintiffs filed a civil action in the Supreme Judicial Court for Suffolk County, seeking a declaration that the petition was invalid under the Massachusetts Constitution, an order quashing the certification, and an injunction preventing the petition from appearing on the ballot. The parties agreed to reserve and report the case to the full Supreme Judicial Court. The central argument was that the petition impermissibly “relates to religion, religious practices or religious institutions,” which is prohibited by Article 48 of the Amendments to the Massachusetts Constitution.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts reviewed the case de novo and concluded that, because the petition included an exemption for facilities operated solely for religious purposes, it “relates to religion” within the meaning of Article 48. The Court explained that the exemption makes religion a factor in the law’s application and would require governmental determinations about religious purpose, thereby conferring preferential treatment on religious institutions. The Court held that the petition is barred from the initiative process by Article 48 and directed that it may not be placed on the 2026 Statewide election ballot. The judgment was remanded for entry of a declaratory judgment and an injunction consistent with this holding. View "Cella v. Attorney General" on Justia Law

A resident of Treasure County, Montana, submitted a petition for a citizen initiative proposing a county ordinance to establish a permitting process and regulatory standards for wind energy conversion systems (WECS) exceeding certain size thresholds. The ordinance sought to regulate various aspects of WECS, including setbacks, noise, wildlife impacts, and penalties for non-compliance, and would have required the county commissioners to administer and enforce the permitting regime. After the petition’s form was approved, the petitioner made minor revisions and resubmitted it.Following these events, the Board of County Commissioners of Treasure County filed a complaint in the Montana Sixteenth Judicial District Court, seeking a declaratory judgment that the proposed ordinance was invalid and unconstitutional. The County argued that specific Montana statutes—namely, Title 76, chapter 2—set forth exclusive processes and requirements for county land-use and zoning regulation, with which the proposed ordinance did not comply. The petitioner responded, generally denying the allegations and seeking a declaration that the ordinance was valid, or that invalid provisions could be severed.The District Court construed the parties’ motions for summary judgment as addressing the validity and constitutionality of the ordinance. It concluded that the ordinance was invalid under § 7-5-135, MCA, because it purported to regulate land use under the county’s general powers when specific statutes governed such regulations, and its provisions exceeded the county’s legislative authority. The court did not reach the constitutional question.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed, holding that this particular proposed ordinance was invalid because it created a permitting and enforcement regime outside the authority delegated to the county by the Legislature. The court clarified that its holding was narrow and did not foreclose all citizen initiatives affecting land use, but only invalidated this ordinance as drafted. View "Treasure County v. Edlund" on Justia Law

Several property owners in New Braunfels, Texas, challenged a city zoning ordinance that prohibits short-term rentals in residential districts. The ordinance, originally enacted in 2006 and amended in 2011, was in place prior to the appellants’ purchase of their properties. Despite knowing about the restrictions, the appellants either engaged in or sought to engage in short-term rental activities and, after being denied zoning changes to permit such use, filed suit against the city. Their claims alleged the ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of both the United States and Texas Constitutions.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas initially dismissed the appellants’ claims under Rule 12(b)(6). The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a prior decision, vacated and remanded, allowing the appellants to proceed to discovery. After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court again ruled in favor of the city, granting summary judgment on all claims. The appellants then sought review of this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Texas law does not recognize a protected property interest in the right to lease one’s home on a short-term basis, which is required for a due process claim. It further found that the ordinance’s restrictions on short-term rentals survive rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause, as the city’s goal of preserving the residential character of neighborhoods is a legitimate government interest, and the line drawn between short-term and longer-term rentals was not arbitrary. Accordingly, the court found no constitutional violation and affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the city. View "Marfil v. City of New Braunfels" on Justia Law

A Michigan-based real estate developer and related parties sought to redevelop a commercial property in the City of Pontiac to include medical marijuana cultivation and processing facilities. After purchasing the property in 2019, the developer obtained rezoning approval from the city, but the process of securing required permits and special exceptions for tenants became protracted. The city clerk cited deficiencies in tenant applications and, at one point, argued that the project violated city ordinances regarding overlay districts for marijuana businesses. Despite eventual approvals—including a court order requiring the city to issue permits—the tenants withdrew due to the delays, and the project collapsed. Subsequently, the developer’s affiliate lost another business opportunity, which plaintiffs attributed to city officials’ retaliation.The plaintiffs filed suit in Oakland County Circuit Court, seeking injunctive, declaratory, and monetary relief, and later brought civil rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The district court granted summary judgment for the city and the city clerk, finding insufficient evidence of constitutional violations and concluding that the delays and alleged retaliation did not violate the plaintiffs’ rights.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked a cognizable property interest under the Due Process Clause because city approval for marijuana facilities was discretionary, not a matter of right. The court also found that the delays did not constitute a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment, as the length and nature of the delays were not extraordinary. The equal protection claim failed for lack of evidence that similarly situated applicants were treated more favorably. Finally, the court determined that the plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claim could not proceed against the city because the mayor lacked final policymaking authority over zoning and no municipal policy or custom was established. View "Rubicon Real Estate Holdings v. City of Pontiac" on Justia Law

Sable Offshore Corp. and Pacific Pipeline Company acquired the Las Flores Pipelines, which run through the coastal zone in Santa Barbara County, California. After the 2015 Refugio Beach oil spill, the pipelines were inactive until Sable purchased them in 2024 and began repair and maintenance work at numerous sites. The California Coastal Commission sent Sable a Notice of Violation, then issued Executive Director Cease and Desist Orders, directing Sable to seek permits for both prospective and already completed work. Sable submitted zoning clearance applications to the County, which declared the repair work authorized by existing permits and declined to act on the applications. The Commission subsequently issued further cease and desist orders and filed a cross-complaint seeking injunctive relief. After observing ongoing construction, the Commission requested a preliminary injunction.The Superior Court of Santa Barbara County held hearings and ultimately granted a preliminary injunction enforcing the Commission’s cease and desist order. Sable appealed, arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction to issue the order because the County had determined no new permits were necessary and had declined enforcement action.The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that under Public Resources Code section 30810, the Commission was authorized to issue a cease and desist order when the County declined to act regarding an alleged violation, regardless of the County’s reasons for its decision. The court found that the trial court properly issued the preliminary injunction upon a prima facie showing of a Coastal Act violation, and no balancing of equities was required under section 30803. The court also rejected Sable’s due process and federal preemption arguments and affirmed the trial court’s judgment. View "Sable Offshore Corp. v. Cal. Coastal Commission" on Justia Law

Brighton Properties, LLC was the original developer of the Butcher Creek Planned Unit Development (PUD) in Telluride, Colorado. Under the PUD Agreement with the Town, various lots were designated for specific uses, with Lot A set aside as open space due to its steep slopes. The Agreement included a clause requiring the consent of all parties for any amendments. After selling all lots except Lot A, Brighton sought to amend the Agreement to allow for affordable housing development on the southern portion of Lot A. The Town declined, citing the lack of required consent from all property owners. Subsequently, Brighton pursued a citizen initiative to rezone Lot A, but the Town rejected this effort, asserting that such an amendment was administrative or quasi-judicial rather than legislative, and thus not a proper subject for an initiative.Brighton challenged the Town’s decision in district court, arguing that the initiative was legislative in character. The district court disagreed, finding that amending the PUD Agreement was administrative and not suitable for the initiative process; it granted summary judgment to the Town. Brighton appealed, and the Colorado Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The appellate court relied on Margolis v. District Court, reasoning that zoning and rezoning decisions are generally legislative and thus subject to initiative.The Supreme Court of Colorado reviewed the case and reversed the appellate court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that while the adoption of a PUD enabling ordinance is legislative, amendments to specific PUD agreements are administrative because they are site-specific and do not set new general policy. Therefore, such amendments are not a proper subject for the initiative process. The case was remanded to the court of appeals with instructions to remand to the district court for consideration of the Town’s attorney fees request. View "Kavanaugh v. Telluride Locals Coal. Petitioners' Comm." on Justia Law

A railroad company operating in Massachusetts sought to acquire a 155-acre parcel in the town of Hopedale to build a new transloading facility. The land had been classified as forest land under Massachusetts General Law Chapter 61, which gives municipalities a right of first refusal to purchase such land if the owner wishes to sell or convert it to another use. After an initial notice of intent to sell was deemed deficient by the town, the seller withdrew the notice. Without issuing a new notice, the seller then transferred beneficial ownership of the property to the railroad company through a transaction that attempted to circumvent the town’s rights. Hopedale asserted its rights under Chapter 61 and filed suit in Massachusetts Land Court to enforce its right of first refusal and prevent further site work by the railroad.After a failed settlement agreement—subsequently invalidated by the Massachusetts Superior Court and with state litigation ongoing—the railroad company petitioned the Surface Transportation Board for a declaratory order that the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (ICCTA) preempted the town’s rights under Chapter 61. The Surface Transportation Board denied the petition, finding that Chapter 61 was a generally applicable property law not categorically preempted by ICCTA, and that the railroad had not established a valid property interest in the land. The Board also concluded that the town’s actions did not unreasonably burden or interfere with rail transportation.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the Board’s order. It held that ICCTA does not preempt Chapter 61’s right-of-first-refusal provisions, as they are generally applicable state property laws and do not directly regulate railroad operations. The court further found that, without a settled property interest, the railroad’s as-applied preemption arguments failed. The court denied the railroad’s petition for review and affirmed the Board’s order. View "Grafton & Upton Railroad Company v. Surface Transportation Board" on Justia Law

A vineyard in Riley County sought to expand its operations through an amendment to its planned unit development. Some neighboring property owners filed a protest petition, as permitted by Kansas law if at least 20% of the affected landowners sign. One property bordering the vineyard was owned by two parties as tenants in common, but only one signed the petition. The Board of Riley County Commissioners counted only half the acreage of that property toward the 20% threshold, reasoning that only half the owners had signed. This calculation meant the protest petition narrowly failed to reach the required threshold, but it would have succeeded if the entire property had been counted.The Riley District Court reviewed the Board’s calculation and the applicability of the protest petition process. The Kansas Court of Appeals later affirmed in part and reversed in part, agreeing with the Board’s approach of counting only the proportional share represented by the signing tenant in common. The Court of Appeals also held that the local regulation incorporated the full protest petition process from state law. Both Prairiewood Holdings, LLC (one of the protest petitioners) and the Board sought further review.The Supreme Court of the State of Kansas affirmed the Court of Appeals’ judgment but clarified the rule. It held that for acreage owned by tenants in common to count toward a protest petition under K.S.A. 12-757(f)(1), all tenants in common of a property must sign the petition. If only one tenant in common signs, none of the acreage for that property should be counted. The Supreme Court also affirmed that the local regulation incorporated the full protest petition process. The judgment of the Court of Appeals and the district court was affirmed in part and reversed in part. View "Prairiewood Holdings v. Board of Riley County Comm'rs" on Justia Law

SWN Production Company, LLC sought to drill multiple horizontal natural gas wells on a 301-acre tract within the City of Weirton, West Virginia. The City required a conditional use permit for oil and gas extraction under its zoning ordinance. SWN applied for such a permit, and the City’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) held hearings where community members raised concerns about traffic, noise, and the effect on local development. The BZA denied SWN’s application, citing incompatibility with the City’s comprehensive development plan and other adverse impacts. Afterward, SWN obtained a drilling permit from the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).SWN filed two actions in the Circuit Court of Brooke County: a petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the BZA’s decision and a complaint seeking a declaration that the City’s zoning ordinance was preempted by state law, especially the Natural Gas Horizontal Well Control Act. The circuit court rejected SWN’s preemption argument and affirmed the BZA’s denial of the permit. SWN appealed both rulings to the Intermediate Court of Appeals of West Virginia (ICA). The ICA reversed the circuit court on the preemption issue, finding the City’s ordinance conflicted with state law, but dismissed SWN’s appeal of the certiorari ruling for lack of jurisdiction.The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reviewed both appeals. It held that there was no irreconcilable conflict between the City’s zoning ordinance and the state’s environmental statutes; rather, any overlap was incidental and not preempted. The Court reversed the ICA’s decision on preemption and reinstated the circuit court’s order dismissing SWN’s facial preemption challenge. Regarding the certiorari appeal, the Court affirmed the ICA’s dismissal, holding that the ICA lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review extraordinary remedies such as certiorari. View "City of Weirton v. SWN Production Company, LLC" on Justia Law