Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

Leslie and Karen Turgeon own property in Spearfish, South Dakota, which can only be accessed by the Thoen Stone Road. The City of Spearfish owns the Thoen Stone Monument and the surrounding parkland, and has maintained a locked gate at the northern entrance of the Road for over forty years, providing keys to certain property owners, including the Turgeons. The Turgeons occasionally experienced issues with the key, hindering their access. They filed a declaratory action seeking a determination that the Road is a public right-of-way, asking the court to order the City to remove the gate and any other obstructions, and to enjoin the City from restricting access for themselves and the public.The Circuit Court for the Fourth Judicial Circuit, Lawrence County, reviewed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court determined that earlier documents (the 1953 Easement, 1971 Agreement, and 1972 Warranty Deed) did not manifest an intent to dedicate the Road for public use. The court found that the 2012 Plat expressly dedicated the Road as a public right-of-way but concluded that the City had not accepted this dedication, either expressly or impliedly, in part because the locked gate was inconsistent with public use. On this basis, the court granted summary judgment to the City and denied all relief to the Turgeons.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the lower court's decision that the Road was not dedicated for public use until the 2012 Plat, and that there was no express acceptance of dedication by the City. However, it reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment regarding implied acceptance, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether the City impliedly accepted the dedication of the Road as a public right-of-way. The case was remanded for trial on this issue. View "Turgeon v. City Of Spearfish" on Justia Law

A non-governmental organization challenged a county planning department’s approval of a family transfer exemption that allowed a landowner to divide an 80-acre tract of land into eight parcels, gifting them to family members. The organization alleged that the planning department failed to provide public notice before approving the exemption, in violation of county subdivision regulations. The land division was discovered years after its approval, when one of the organization’s members was researching a neighboring tract. The organization contended that the lack of public notice denied its members an opportunity to comment on the exemption application, as required by the county’s regulations.The organization filed suit in the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The county moved to dismiss, arguing that its regulations did not require public notice for exemption applications. The District Court granted the county’s motion, dismissing all claims, and specifically found that the county regulations did not mandate published notice for review of proposed subdivision exemptions.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the plain language of the county’s regulations, which state that “the public shall be permitted to comment” on exemption applications, necessarily implies that public notice must be provided; otherwise, the right to comment would be meaningless. The court emphasized that although the regulations do not specify the manner of notice, adequate notice is required to effectuate public participation. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The holding was that the county’s subdivision regulations require the planning department to provide public notice of pending subdivision exemption applications to enable meaningful public comment. View "Sapphire v. Ravalli County" on Justia Law

This case centers on a dispute involving the planned construction of a new cottage by a hotel operator on Martha’s Vineyard. The hotel, situated in a residential area, is considered a preexisting nonconforming commercial use. In 2008, the hotel’s predecessor sought permission for expansion and entered into an agreement with a neighboring property owner, who agreed not to oppose the project or appeal permit decisions, in exchange for promises including the installation and maintenance of vegetative screening. After subsequent changes to the project—including the removal and replacement of screening and the relocation and resizing of the cottage—the neighbor, acting as trustee, objected to the most recent modifications in 2023, claiming inadequate screening and diminished privacy.Following the 2023 decision by the Edgartown zoning board of appeals approving the hotel’s modifications, the trustee filed suit challenging that decision and asserting additional claims against the hotel. The hotel counterclaimed for abuse of process, alleging that the suit was frivolous and vexatious. The Superior Court denied the trustee’s special motion to dismiss the counterclaim under the Massachusetts anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the underlying lawsuit was a sham. The trustee appealed. The Appeals Court reversed, finding that it could not determine at that stage whether the trustee’s claims were meritless because the underlying suit was unresolved.The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the anti-SLAPP statute requires the party opposing dismissal to prove that the petitioning activity (the lawsuit) was devoid of reasonable factual support or any arguable basis in law. The court determined that the hotel failed to meet this burden because the trustee’s challenge to the 2023 decision was not frivolous on its face. The order denying the special motion to dismiss was therefore reversed, and the case remanded for further proceedings, including an award of attorney’s fees to the trustee. View "Allegaert v. Harbor View Hotel Owner LLC" on Justia Law

Defendants constructed an accessory dwelling unit on a property in Fair Oaks without obtaining the required building permit from the County of Sacramento. They initially applied for a permit, but their application was incomplete and they failed to make necessary corrections. Despite receiving multiple notices of violation and stop work orders from the County, defendants completed construction and leased the unit to a tenant without ever obtaining a final permit or a certificate of occupancy, nor did the County inspect the unit for code compliance.After defendants unsuccessfully appealed the first notice of violation to the County Building Board of Appeals and did not challenge subsequent notices, the County filed suit in the Superior Court of Sacramento County. The County alleged that defendants’ conduct violated state and local building codes and constituted a public nuisance per se under local ordinances. Following a court trial, the Superior Court ruled in favor of the County on both causes of action and issued a permanent injunction, finding that building without a permit was a public nuisance per se as declared by County ordinance.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, reviewed the case. The court rejected defendants’ arguments that the County lacked standing, that its nuisance ordinances conflicted with state law, and that the trial court misapplied the law in finding a nuisance per se. The appellate court held that the County had the authority and standing to enforce its building and nuisance codes, that its ordinances did not conflict with state law, and that construction without a permit constitutes a nuisance per se as expressly declared by County ordinance. The judgment was affirmed, and costs on appeal were awarded to the County. View "County of Sacramento v. NKS Real Estate Holdings" on Justia Law

A renewable energy developer was awarded a standard-offer contract in 2014 to build a solar facility in Bennington, Vermont, with a requirement to commission the project by 2016. The developer repeatedly sought and received extensions to this deadline, while simultaneously pursuing a certificate of public good (CPG), which is also required for construction. The Public Utility Commission (PUC) granted the CPG in 2018, but it was appealed, reversed, and ultimately denied on remand due to violations of local land conservation measures and adverse impacts on aesthetics. The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the final CPG denial in 2023.While litigation over the CPG was ongoing, the developer continued to seek extensions of its standard-offer contract’s commissioning milestone. The fifth extension request, filed in 2021, asked for a deadline twelve months after the Supreme Court’s mandate in the CPG appeal. The hearing officer recommended granting it, but the PUC did not act on the request until 2024, by which time the developer’s CPG had been finally denied. The PUC dismissed the fifth extension request as moot, finding the contract had expired by its own terms. The PUC also denied the developer’s motion for reconsideration and a sixth extension request, on the same grounds.On appeal, the Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the PUC’s actions with deference, upholding its factual findings unless clearly erroneous and its discretionary decisions unless there was an abuse of discretion. The Court held that the PUC properly concluded the requested extension was moot, the contract was null and void by its terms, and there was no abuse of discretion. The Court also rejected arguments that the PUC’s actions were inconsistent with other cases or violated constitutional rights. The orders of the PUC were affirmed. View "In re Petition of Apple Hill Solar LLC" on Justia Law

A company sought to operate a red-dirt surface mine on approximately twenty acres in a part of Washington County that was zoned for agricultural and single-family residential uses. The company, operating as Heritage Farms, applied for a conditional use permit, which the Washington County Planning Board considered and ultimately denied. The company then appealed this denial to the Washington County Quorum Court, which upheld the Planning Board’s decision and adopted an ordinance reflecting the denial. The company further appealed to the Washington County Circuit Court. During the circuit court proceedings, several local residents and a neighborhood association were allowed to intervene. The company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the denial was arbitrary and capricious, while the intervenors and county argued that the proper standard of review was arbitrary and capricious because the action was legislative, and that there was a rational basis for the denial.The Washington County Circuit Court found that the quorum court’s denial of the permit was a legislative act and thus applied the arbitrary-and-capricious standard of review. The court also held that Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-17-211 was unconstitutional to the extent that it permitted de novo review of legislative zoning decisions. Applying the arbitrary-and-capricious standard, the circuit court concluded there was a rational basis for the denial and affirmed the quorum court’s action. The Arkansas Court of Appeals then affirmed the circuit court’s order.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and held that the denial of the conditional use permit was a quasi-judicial act, not a legislative one, because it involved applying existing ordinance provisions to the facts of the application rather than creating new law. Therefore, the circuit court should have conducted a de novo review rather than applying the arbitrary-and-capricious standard. The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the circuit court’s judgment, vacated the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "MMSC, LLC V. WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Two neighboring landowners in Middletown, Delaware, disputed whether a cross-easement existed that would allow one parcel (Reybold’s) to use a highway entrance situated on the other parcel (Summit’s). The properties were originally subdivided from a larger tract owned by Viola Carter. During the subdivision and rezoning process in the 1980s, the developer’s engineer, at the request of government agencies, included a note on the record plan stating that “a cross-easement is hereby established” between the parcels for vehicular and pedestrian access. Carter signed the record plan, certifying her ownership and intent to develop according to the plan. The record plan was recorded, and both properties were subsequently sold to new owners, with deeds referencing the plan.Years later, after Reybold purchased one parcel, it sought to enforce the cross-easement to gain more valuable access to the main road. Summit, the owner of the adjoining shopping center parcel, refused to recognize the easement. Reybold sued Summit in the Court of Chancery. A Magistrate in Chancery found that an express cross-easement had been created and could be enforced by Reybold. However, the Vice Chancellor, on de novo review, disagreed, holding that the record plan note was a “notation” under the County Code, which only the County could enforce, and that there was insufficient evidence of the original owner’s intention to create a private easement.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware reversed the Court of Chancery. It held that the landowner’s signature and certification on a recorded plan containing a note establishing a cross-easement were sufficient to create an enforceable express easement appurtenant. The Court ruled that Summit, as a subsequent purchaser, is bound by this easement, and entered judgment for Reybold. View "Reybold Venture Group IX, LLC v. Summit Plaza Shopping Center, LLC" on Justia Law

A group comprised of property owners from several Montana cities challenged the constitutionality of several zoning and land use laws enacted in 2023, including statutes requiring municipalities to permit accessory dwelling units and duplexes in single-family zones, and the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA), which imposed comprehensive planning requirements on larger cities. The group argued that these laws unfairly burdened single-family neighborhoods, undermined the right of citizens to participate in land-use decisions, and violated equal protection by creating arbitrary distinctions between citizens.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court initially granted partial relief to the challengers, enjoining certain statutory provisions it found violated the right to participate, and declared that the new laws could not supersede more restrictive private covenants. The court also held that the housing statutes did not violate equal protection. Parties on both sides appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed these rulings. It first found that the public participation claims were justiciable, as a live controversy remained due to the likelihood of the challenged provisions recurring after temporary legislative amendments expired. The court held that the MLUPA’s public participation procedures did not, on their face, violate the Montana Constitution’s right to participate, as the statutes provided for notice and reasonable opportunity for public input, especially during the development of comprehensive plans, even if not at every stage of the process.The court also affirmed that the statutes did not violate equal protection, because the alleged classes—citizens in cities subject to MLUPA versus those outside, or those with versus without private covenants—were not similarly situated for constitutional purposes. Finally, the court vacated the lower court’s declaratory judgment regarding private covenants, finding it was an improper advisory opinion. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the lower court’s judgment. View "M.A.I.D. v. State" on Justia Law

The plaintiff owned a vacant parcel in Westerly, Rhode Island, and sought to construct a single-family home. To do so, he needed approval from the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) for an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS). He applied for a variance from DEM’s regulations, asserting that his proposed system satisfied the general standard for granting variances. However, DEM denied the variance because the property’s water table was at zero inches from the original ground surface, failing to meet a specific regulatory requirement.After DEM’s denial, the plaintiff did not appeal to DEM’s Administrative Adjudication Division (AAD), arguing that such an appeal would be futile since the AAD purportedly lacked discretion to overturn the denial and could not adjudicate constitutional claims. Instead, he filed suit in the Superior Court, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief, asserting both as-applied and facial challenges to the OWTS regulations under the Takings, Due Process, and Equal Protection Clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The state moved to dismiss, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and the lack of constitutional violations. The Superior Court granted the state’s motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies and the futility exception did not apply.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. The Court held that the plaintiff was required to exhaust administrative remedies for his as-applied challenges and that the futility exception did not apply because the AAD had independent authority to grant variances. For the facial constitutional challenge, the Court determined that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The judgment dismissing the complaint was affirmed and the matter remanded. View "DiBiccari v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

Two applicants submitted materials to operate medical cannabis cultivation facilities in a Maine town in August 2024. Their initial applications did not include necessary documentation showing that their facilities would be located in a “Registered Cannabis Property,” which was required by the town’s licensing ordinance. Town staff reviewed the applications and placed them on the council agenda for a “first reading,” a step not required by ordinance but adopted by custom. On September 4, 2024, before the first reading of the applications, the Town Council amended the zoning ordinance to add a 1,000-foot setback requirement between cannabis facilities and residential properties—a standard the applicants’ locations could not meet. After the amendment, staff told the council the applications were “complete,” and the first reading occurred. The public hearing and further review were scheduled, and the required property registration was later filed. The council ultimately denied the applications for failing to meet the new setback requirement.The applicants sought judicial review in the Cumberland County Superior Court under Maine Rule of Civil Procedure 80B. The Superior Court affirmed the Town Council’s decision, concluding that the applications were not “pending” at the time of the ordinance amendment and thus were subject to the new setback requirement.On further appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed whether the applications were “pending” within the meaning of 1 M.R.S. § 302 at the time the ordinance was amended. The court held that an application is not “pending” until the reviewing authority has conducted a substantive review of whether it meets the approval criteria. Because the Town Council had not begun substantive review before the zoning amendment was enacted, the applications were not pending and were properly denied under the amended ordinance. The judgment was affirmed. View "Shark Tank Strategies, LLC v. Town of Scarborough" on Justia Law