Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

A real estate developer purchased a vacant parcel of land in Worthington, Ohio, previously owned by a youth home. The property was primarily zoned for public or institutional uses such as parks, hospitals, and churches. The developer sought to build a mixed-use project and applied for rezoning and development plan approval. After public meetings where concerns about greenspace, traffic, and density were raised, the municipal planning commission tabled the initial application. The developer later reduced the number of proposed residential units, but the commission still declined to recommend approval, and the city council denied the rezoning application. Subsequently, the city amended its comprehensive plan to emphasize greenspace. The developer, having purchased the property after waiving a rezoning contingency, filed suit, alleging constitutional violations due to the city’s refusal to rezone and amend the comprehensive plan.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissed most of the developer’s claims at the motion-to-dismiss stage, including due process counts, and granted summary judgment to the city on the remaining regulatory takings and declaratory judgment claims. The developer appealed, challenging the dismissal and grant of summary judgment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the grant of summary judgment and dismissal de novo. The court held that the city’s actions did not constitute a regulatory taking under the Penn Central factors, as the developer lacked a reasonable investment-backed expectation of rezoning approval and the city’s actions had legitimate public purposes. The court also found that the zoning ordinance was not unconstitutional beyond fair debate and that the developer failed to allege a cognizable property interest or arbitrary government action for its due process claims. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in all respects. View "Lifestyle Communities, Ltd. v. City of Worthington" on Justia Law

A nonprofit coalition and two individuals challenged a county commission’s conditional approval for the development of a large seasonal RV park on a 21-acre lot in a rural area that had previously been designated for such use in a larger subdivision plan. The proposed site was adjacent to other commercial activity and near two lakes, but had no on-site surface water. The applicants submitted an environmental assessment (EA), which included groundwater well data and described wildlife in the area. The application process included public hearings, during which concerns were raised about groundwater impacts, wildlife, public safety, and increased recreational use.Following the submission of the application, the Lincoln County Planning Department recommended approval, and the Board of County Commissioners held public hearings, received additional agency comments, and ultimately granted conditional preliminary plat approval, requiring, among other conditions, state environmental review and approval of the water and sewer systems. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court, claiming the County’s approval was unlawful for not complying with statutory requirements for environmental review, consideration of probable impacts, and consistency with local plans. The District Court granted summary judgment for the County and intervenors, finding compliance with applicable statutes and plans.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the EA met statutory requirements, whether the County considered specific, documentable, and clearly defined impacts as required by law, and whether the subdivision was consistent with the local neighborhood plan and growth policy. The Supreme Court held that the EA satisfied statutory requirements by providing all available information; the County properly considered impacts using the required legal standard; and the County’s decision was consistent with the relevant policies and not arbitrary or capricious. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Thompson Chain of Lakes Stewardship Coalition v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law

A non-governmental organization challenged a county planning department’s decision to approve a land division in the Bitterroot Valley. The organization alleged that the planning department authorized a property owner to divide an 80-acre tract into eight parcels using a family transfer exemption, but failed to provide public notice before approving the application. The organization discovered the land division after it had occurred and argued that the lack of public notice violated the county’s subdivision regulations, the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, the Montana Public Participation Act, and constitutional rights to know and participate.The case was first heard in the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court, which granted the county’s motion to dismiss all claims. The district court concluded that the applicable county regulations did not require the planning department to provide published notice before reviewing or approving subdivision exemption applications. The court held that the organization had not stated a plausible claim because the regulations required only that the department accept public comments, not that it give notice.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims related to declaratory relief. The Supreme Court held that the county subdivision regulations, while silent on the specific mechanics of notice, require the planning department to provide public notice of pending exemption applications in order to give meaningful effect to the public’s right to comment, as mandated by the regulations. The court emphasized that public comment is meaningless without notice, and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to require the planning department to provide notice and an adequate opportunity for public comment before reevaluating the exemption application. View "Sapphire v. Ravalli County" on Justia Law

Eleven individuals residing in the Town of Rockport, Massachusetts, challenged the creation of a new zoning overlay district that would allow high-density, multi-family housing near a commuter rail station. Some plaintiffs live adjacent to or within the boundaries of the affected overlay district. The plaintiffs argued that the adoption of the district should have required a two-thirds vote at the town meeting under state law, rather than the simple majority used, and alleged that the new zoning would negatively impact their property values and personal expectations regarding their property.After the Town held the vote and adopted the overlay district, the plaintiffs filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief on both state statutory and federal constitutional grounds. The Town moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing. In response, the plaintiffs provided additional details in their briefing but did not amend their complaint to allege specific individualized harm. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, finding the plaintiffs had failed to allege sufficient facts to establish standing, and that neither legislative nor abutter standing applied.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the plaintiffs had not adequately demonstrated a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact as required by Article III. General, conclusory allegations about diminished property values and expectations were insufficient. The court also found that statutory “abutter” standing and legislative standing theories did not confer standing in federal court for these claims. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s dismissal for lack of standing and subject-matter jurisdiction. View "Kolackovsky v. Town of Rockport" on Justia Law

The dispute centers around an attempted annexation by the City of North Charleston of a one-acre parcel located near Highway 61 and the Ashley River. This parcel, purchased by North Charleston in 2017, is situated on the southwest side of Highway 61 and separated from both the highway and North Charleston’s existing city limits by a narrow strip of land owned by the National Trust for Historic Preservation. That narrow strip has been part of the City of Charleston since its annexation in 2005. The annexation ordinance at issue included 62 square feet of the National Trust’s strip—land within Charleston’s city limits—in its property description.The National Trust and the City of Charleston challenged the validity of North Charleston’s annexation ordinance, arguing that the parcel was not “adjacent” to North Charleston’s existing city limits as required by section 5-3-100 of the South Carolina Code. The Circuit Court for Charleston County dismissed the lawsuit, holding that neither the National Trust nor Charleston had standing to contest the annexation, but also found in the alternative that, if standing existed, the annexation was invalid because the parcel was not adjacent to North Charleston’s city limits. On appeal, the South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal for lack of standing and declined to reach the merits of the annexation’s validity.The Supreme Court of South Carolina granted review and held that both the National Trust and the City of Charleston had standing to challenge the annexation. The Court further affirmed the circuit court’s alternative ruling that North Charleston’s annexation was invalid because the parcel was not “adjacent” to its city limits, as required under state law. Thus, the decision of the court of appeals was reversed in part and affirmed in part. View "National Trust for Historic Preservation v. City of North Charleston" on Justia Law

A nonprofit organization challenged the validity of the City of La Habra’s February 2023 revision to its housing element, arguing that the modifications were adopted by the City Manager rather than the City Council and without additional public hearings. The housing element, part of the city’s general plan, is subject to periodic revision and state review. In this instance, after several public meetings and hearings on earlier drafts, the City Council adopted the housing element in September 2022 and authorized the City Manager to make further technical or clerical changes necessary for state certification. The City Manager subsequently approved additional revisions in February 2023, which were submitted to and certified by the Department of Housing and Community Development.In the Superior Court of Orange County, the nonprofit filed a petition for writ of mandate, seeking to prohibit the City from treating the February 2023 version as validly adopted. The court denied the petition, finding that the City had met public participation requirements through hearings on prior drafts and online posting of the revised element. The trial court also ruled that the City Council validly delegated authority to the City Manager for minor revisions and determined that any procedural errors were harmless, as required by Government Code section 65010, subdivision (b).The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division Three, affirmed the judgment. The court held that additional public hearings were not required for the February 2023 modifications since they constituted part of the ongoing revision and certification process, rather than a distinct amendment. It further held that the City Council’s delegation of authority to the City Manager was valid and consistent with local law. Finally, the court found no prejudicial error or substantial harm resulted from the process used, upholding the presumption of validity following state certification. The judgment was affirmed. View "Californians for Homeownership v. City of La Habra" on Justia Law

The case concerns a challenge to the rezoning of 145 acres of farmland in Canyon County, Idaho for light industrial use. The property owners, the Judith A. Gross Trust and Douglas Gross, sought the rezoning to facilitate future industrial development. The Canyon County Development Services Department and Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval, and the Canyon County Board of County Commissioners ultimately approved the rezoning with conditions, including restrictions on certain uses. Three local businessmen and their agricultural business objected, arguing the rezoning would harm their agribusiness interests by reducing available farmland and impacting crop isolation.After the Board declined to reconsider its approval, the petitioners filed for judicial review in the District Court of the Third Judicial District of Idaho, Canyon County. They claimed standing as “affected persons” under the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA), asserting concrete adverse impacts on their businesses. The district court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners failed to establish “constitutional” standing under the traditional three-part test—injury in fact, causation, and redressability—and declined to consider whether the petitioners met LLUPA’s “affected person” standard.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho reviewed the district court’s decision. It held that the applicable standing inquiry for judicial review under LLUPA is the “affected person” standard set forth in Idaho Code section 67-6521, rather than the traditional federal three-part test. The Court clarified that Idaho’s standing doctrine is a “self-imposed constraint” and subject to legislative definition. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s denial of the petition for review and remanded for consideration of standing under the LLUPA standard. Attorney fees were denied, but costs were awarded to the petitioners. View "Crookham v. County of Canyon" on Justia Law

Keeling Grubb, acting as president and CEO of Eureka Gun and Pawn, LLC, sought a conditional-use permit (CUP) from the City of Eureka Springs to operate the business as a gun and pawn shop. Grubb submitted the application in May 2023, but the City’s Planning Commission denied it at a special meeting, and the denial was subsequently upheld by the Eureka Springs City Council. After these denials, Grubb and Eureka Gun filed a complaint in Carroll County Circuit Court, challenging the City’s actions and advancing multiple constitutional and statutory claims related to due process, equal protection, property rights, freedom of association and speech, as well as the right to bear arms.In Carroll County Circuit Court, the bench trial was expressly limited to count one of the complaint: an appeal of the City Council’s administrative decision denying the CUP. The remaining claims were reserved for future resolution. During trial, evidence was presented on the nature of the business and community views, but the primary issue was whether Eureka Gun was entitled to a CUP under the City's ordinance. The circuit court denied the appellants’ motion for partial summary judgment and granted the City’s motion for directed verdict, finding that Eureka Gun was not entitled to the permit. Additionally, the court ruled that Arkansas Code Annotated § 14-16-504(b)(1)(A) did not apply to the commercial sale of firearms.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the appeal. It held that the orders appealed from were not final because the circuit court had only adjudicated one of multiple claims, leaving the others pending, and no Rule 54(b) certificate was issued to permit an immediate appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice for lack of a final order and declined to address the merits. View "EUREKA GUN AND PAWN, LLC V. THE CITY OF EUREKA SPRINGS" on Justia Law

The case concerns the approval of the Giovannioni Logistics Center Project, a large warehouse development in the City of American Canyon, California. The project requires American Canyon to certify an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), specifically addressing water supply issues since the city relies on outside sources, including water purchased from the neighboring City of Vallejo under a longstanding agreement. Vallejo’s water comes from the State Water Project and its own appropriative water right (License 7848). Vallejo objected to the EIR, asserting that it did not adequately disclose limitations on water availability, including place of use restrictions on License 7848 and ongoing contract litigation between the cities.Vallejo filed a petition for writ of mandate in Napa County Superior Court, later transferred to Sacramento Superior Court, contending that the EIR failed to meet CEQA and Water Code requirements regarding water supply disclosures and contingency planning. The trial court reviewed Vallejo’s arguments, which included claims that the EIR did not account for actual water delivered, failed to assess legal restrictions on water use, neglected the implications of curtailments during drought, and ignored the impact of contract disputes. After argument, the trial court denied Vallejo’s petition and entered judgment for American Canyon and the project developer, Buzz Oates LLC.The California Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. It held that the EIR and water supply assessment complied with CEQA and the Water Code. The court found that the EIR provided sufficient detail about water supply sources and reliability, reasonably addressed foreseeable uncertainties, and did not require more specific disclosures or contingency planning absent evidence of insufficient supply. The court also concluded that any technical omissions were harmless and that Vallejo failed to demonstrate prejudice or a legal deficiency in the environmental review process. View "City of Vallejo v. City of American Canyon" on Justia Law

Petitioners are owners and residents of units in SoHo and NoHo buildings designated under New York City’s Joint Living-Work Quarters for Artists (JLWQA) program, which, since 1971, has limited legal occupancy to certified artists or those who obtained amnesty through later amendments. In 2021, the City rezoned the area, allowing JLWQA units to be voluntarily converted to unrestricted residential use upon payment of a one-time fee calculated by square footage. The fee supports an arts fund. Petitioners challenged this fee, claiming it was an unconstitutional condition and a taking under the Fifth Amendment.The case was first heard in New York Supreme Court, which dismissed the petition, finding that the fee was a monetary obligation not subject to the Takings Clause. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed, holding that the fee was a permit condition subject to heightened scrutiny under the Nollan and Dolan unconstitutional conditions doctrine. The court found that the City failed to show the fee had an essential nexus to a legitimate governmental interest or was roughly proportional to any harm caused by conversion, declared the fee unconstitutional, and enjoined its enforcement.The New York Court of Appeals reviewed the case and reversed the Appellate Division’s order. The Court of Appeals held that petitioners did not have a compensable property interest within the meaning of the Takings Clause regarding the opportunity to convert their JLWQA units. The fee did not constitute a taking because it did not diminish or extinguish existing property rights, nor was it imposed in lieu of a direct appropriation of property. The Court further clarified that a standalone monetary fee for conversion does not implicate the Takings Clause and that heightened scrutiny under Nollan/Dolan only applies to direct exactions or in-lieu-of-property conditions. Judgment was granted for the City. View "Matter of Coalition for Fairness in Soho & Noho, Inc. v City of New York" on Justia Law