Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

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

Koch Methanol St. James, LLC sought approval from St. James Parish for a land use permit to upgrade its methanol production facility, including the installation of a connecting pipeline that would traverse a wetlands area. The Parish’s Land Use Plan includes specific provisions for allowable uses in wetlands, stating that such areas should remain unoccupied except for unique situations requiring a location in the water. The Parish Planning Commission interpreted this language as permitting Koch’s project under Tier 2 review, since the pipeline was considered a unique situation due to its necessity in connecting to an existing pipeline already located in the wetlands.After the Planning Commission approved the application, plaintiffs appealed to the Parish Council, which unanimously rejected the appeal. Plaintiffs then sought judicial review in the District Court for St. James Parish. The district court upheld the Council’s decision, finding that the Parish’s interpretation of the Plan was reasonable, the process was not arbitrary or capricious, and that Tier 2 review was appropriate for the project. The court also noted that the procedures followed were adequate and left room for reasonable differences of opinion.On appeal, the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, reversed the district court’s ruling, applying what it termed “de novo review.” The appellate court determined that the Plan required Tier 3 review for any use in wetlands unless specifically listed as allowable, and concluded that the Parish had failed to follow its own ordinance by applying Tier 2 review. The appellate court remanded the matter for further proceedings.The Supreme Court of Louisiana held that the appellate court erred by applying a de novo standard rather than the proper arbitrary and capricious standard of review. The Supreme Court vacated the appellate court’s ruling and reinstated the district court’s judgment, emphasizing deference to the Parish’s interpretation and decision-making authority in land use matters. View "ALEXANDER VS. ST. JAMES PARISH" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs purchased undeveloped property in Westerly, Rhode Island, in 1999. In 2007, they applied to the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM) for permission to install an onsite wastewater treatment system (OWTS), a prerequisite for building a residence on their land. DEM denied their application because the groundwater table on the property was only five inches below the surface, while regulations required a minimum of twelve inches. The plaintiffs did not pursue an administrative appeal at that time.In 2020, more than a decade after the denial, the plaintiffs filed suit in Washington County Superior Court, seeking declaratory relief and compensation for an alleged regulatory taking under state and federal law. They also asserted that the regulation violated their rights to equal protection and due process. The state moved to dismiss the action, contending it was time-barred, the plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and they lacked standing. The Superior Court agreed, holding that the claims were barred by the statute of limitations, that administrative remedies had not been exhausted, and that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court dismissed the case with prejudice.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Rhode Island reviewed whether the lower court’s dismissal was proper. The Court held that the three-year statute of limitations applied to all claims, and the continuing violation doctrine did not toll the limitations period because DEM’s denial of the permit was a discrete act, not a continuing violation. The Court further found the plaintiffs lacked standing for prospective relief because they did not allege an actual or imminent injury, as any future application might not necessarily be denied. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "Majeika v. State of Rhode Island" on Justia Law

A group of landowners and mutual water companies in Ventura County, California, claimed rights to groundwater from the Las Posas Valley Groundwater Basin, which supplies water for agricultural, commercial, and domestic purposes. The groundwater basin had been subject to restrictions and management by the Fox Canyon Groundwater Management Agency (Fox Canyon), especially in light of overdraft conditions and the requirements of the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA). Disputes arose over groundwater pumping allocations, historical use, and the proper method for determining and allocating water rights among various landowners, mutual water companies, and public agencies.The case was brought as a comprehensive groundwater adjudication in the Superior Court of Santa Barbara County, proceeding in three phases. First, the court established the initial “Total Safe Yield” of the basin and allocated a portion to certain public water suppliers. In the second phase, the court, after a trial and a settlement agreed to by a large majority of parties, allocated the remaining rights among landowners, prioritizing overlying landowners and finding no surplus for appropriators. The third phase established a “physical solution” for basin management, appointing Fox Canyon as watermaster and integrating the settlement into a final judgment. Several parties, including Mahan Ranch and two mutual water companies, objected to aspects of the allocations and the final judgment, raising issues about the treatment of mutual water companies, the handling of dormant rights, and the legality of the court's actions.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Six, reviewed the case. It held that the trial court properly allocated water rights based on overlying landowners’ rights, not directly to mutual water companies, and that there was no surplus for appropriators. The court found the physical solution and allocations consistent with California law, the Constitution, and SGMA, and that non-stipulating parties were treated equitably. The judgment was affirmed. View "Las Posas Valley Water v. Ventura County Waterworks" on Justia Law

A company sought to erect a digital billboard in a small Ohio municipality but was prevented from doing so by the local billboard ordinance, which included restrictions on size, location, and type of billboards permitted. The ordinance specifically banned “variable message” (digital) signs and implemented a “cap and replace” rule, allowing new billboards only if older ones were removed. The ordinance also contained several exemptions, including one for “public service” signs, which were allowed to display information like time or weather if not used for advertising.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted summary judgment to the municipality, upholding the ordinance against the company’s First Amendment challenges. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that the exemption for public service signs was an unconstitutional, content-based restriction under the First Amendment, but remanded the case for the district court to determine whether the invalid exemption was severable from the rest of the ordinance.On remand, the district court found that the unconstitutional provision could be severed and that the remainder of the ordinance survived intermediate scrutiny, granting judgment again in favor of the municipality. The company appealed.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the public-service exemption was severable under Ohio law, applying the three-part test from Geiger v. Geiger. The court further held that the remaining provisions of the ordinance were content-neutral and survived intermediate scrutiny because they were narrowly tailored to significant governmental interests such as traffic safety and aesthetics. The court also held that the company was not entitled to damages or attorney fees, as it was not a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b). View "Norton Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Village of St. Bernard" on Justia Law

The City sought to annex two undeveloped tracts of land adjacent to its existing boundaries in DeSoto County, Mississippi. One tract, owned by the Bridgforth family, had previously been split between city and county lines after an earlier annexation. The other tract, owned in part by the Bridgforths and in part by the Funderburk family, was near a highway interchange and had been considered for commercial development, including a potential truck stop, though no firm plans were underway. Both tracts were vacant and uninhabited, and landowners petitioned for annexation primarily to obtain municipal services for future development.The DeSoto County Chancery Court previously excluded these tracts from a major 2021 annexation. After the City enacted an ordinance and filed a new petition to annex the tracts, the Chancery Court held a trial with testimony from landowners, city officials, and experts. The court found the annexation unreasonable, citing speculative development plans, potential for jurisdictional confusion, the possibility of annexation being used to bypass county zoning restrictions, and the recent exclusion of these tracts in the 2021 annexation. The court relied on statutory factors, including the City’s need to expand, the adequacy of current county services, and the absence of population in the proposed area.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed whether the chancery court’s denial of annexation was supported by substantial evidence and applied the correct legal standard. The Supreme Court held that the chancery court’s findings were not manifestly wrong and were supported by credible evidence, including the lack of demonstrated need for expansion and the adequacy of existing services. The Court affirmed the chancery court’s judgment, upholding the denial of annexation. View "In The Matter of The Enlarging, Extending and Defining The Corporate Limits and Boundaries of The City of Olive Branch, DeSoto County, Mississippi v. Dobbins" on Justia Law

In 2019, the governing body of a Tennessee county adopted a resolution regulating the operation and location of quarries and similar activities in unincorporated areas. The resolution prohibited quarries from being located within 5,000 feet of residences, schools, parks, and various other establishments. After purchasing property and leasing it for quarry operations, the plaintiffs were informed by the county mayor that their quarry violated this resolution and were asked to cease operations. The plaintiffs filed a declaratory judgment action, arguing that the resolution was void because it functioned as a zoning ordinance and was not enacted in compliance with statutory zoning procedures. The county, in response, maintained that the resolution was not a zoning ordinance but rather a proper exercise of its police powers.The case was first heard in the Chancery Court for Grundy County, which granted summary judgment in favor of the county. The court reasoned that, because the county did not have a comprehensive zoning plan, the resolution could not be considered tantamount to zoning and thus was not subject to the County Zoning Act’s requirements. The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed, but on different grounds. It held that the absence of a comprehensive zoning plan was not determinative but concluded that the resolution did not divide the county into districts and thus was not a zoning ordinance.The Supreme Court of Tennessee reviewed the case and reversed the lower courts. The Court held that the resolution was, in effect, a zoning ordinance because it divided the county into zones—prohibiting quarrying in certain areas based on proximity to designated establishments—and substantially affected land use. The Court found that the county failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the County Zoning Act, rendering the resolution unenforceable. The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs. View "Tinsley Properties, LLC v. Grundy County, Tennessee" on Justia Law

The property in question had operated as a tavern under a nonconforming-use exception in an area zoned for residential use. The tavern ceased operations in April 2019 after its liquor license became inactive in January 2019. In March 2022, one of the property’s owners and a representative inquired with the township zoning inspector about the property’s status, prompted by interest from a potential buyer who wanted to reopen the tavern. The inspector responded by email, stating that the property no longer qualified as a nonconforming use due to over two years of discontinued operation and referenced the applicable zoning resolution provision.Following this, the property owners, through counsel, requested clarification and formal notice regarding the property’s zoning status. The township’s legal counsel confirmed the inspector’s position by forwarding the original email as the official communication. The owners then appealed to the Hinckley Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), which dismissed the appeal as untimely, finding that the email constituted a “decision” under Ohio law and that the 20-day appeal period had lapsed. The Medina County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the BZA’s dismissal, concluding that the email was a “decision” and that notice was sufficient. On further appeal, the Ninth District Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the email was not a formal “decision” under the relevant statutes and therefore did not trigger the appeal deadline.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and affirmed the Ninth District’s judgment. The Court held that the zoning inspector’s email was not a “decision” as contemplated by Ohio Revised Code sections 519.14 and 519.15, and so did not trigger the statutory appeal deadline. The BZA therefore lacked jurisdiction to entertain the property owners’ appeal. View "729 W. 130th St., L.L.C. v. Hinckley Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals" on Justia Law

New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC applied to install six antennas on top of a water tower owned by the York Water District. The Town of York Planning Board approved the application. Two nearby property owners opposed the project, claiming it violated the local Wireless Communications Facilities Ordinance, specifically regarding fencing and setbacks from residential structures. They filed an administrative appeal with the Town of York Board of Appeals, which held public hearings. During the process, the Board asked New Cingular Wireless to provide a more accurate site plan showing distances to neighboring residences. After reviewing the updated information, the Board denied the neighbors’ appeal, stating it was satisfied with the information provided.The neighbors then sought judicial review in the York County Superior Court, arguing that the project did not comply with fencing and setback requirements. The Superior Court affirmed the Board’s decision. The neighbors appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, continuing to dispute whether the project met the ordinance’s requirements.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the neighbors did not preserve their argument about fencing requirements, as this issue was not raised before the Board of Appeals and was therefore waived. However, the Court found that the setback issue had been properly preserved for review. The Court determined that the Board’s findings regarding setbacks were insufficient for appellate review, as the Board did not explain from where the setback was measured or whether the project met the ordinance’s requirements. The Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the matter to the Superior Court with instructions to remand it to the Board of Appeals for further factual findings and explanation regarding compliance with setback requirements. View "Drew v. Town of York" on Justia Law