Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the appellate court reversing the judgment of the circuit court finding that a county ordinance did not violate Maryland's uniformity requirement requiring zoning laws to "be uniform for each class or kind of development throughout a district or zone," Md. Code Ann., Land Use 22-201(b)(2)(i), holding that the ordinance should have survived the uniformity challenge.While Prince George's County's zoning ordinance had historically limited development of housing at a private airport to low-density, single-family detached housing, the County Council amended the ordinance's text to allow the development of higher-density housing at the airport in order to incentivize redevelopment. Certain constituents brought suit, arguing that the ordinance violated uniformity because it was tailored so narrowly as to afford favorable development opportunities. The appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the ordinance discriminated arbitrarily, and therefore, their uniformity challenge failed. View "Prince George's County v. Concerned Citizens" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing the judgment of the circuit court denying Constituents' challenge to the amendment to a zoning ordinance limiting development of housing at a private airport in Prince George's County, which allowed the airport to develop higher-density housing, holding that the ordinance survived the challenge.While the County's zoning ordinance had historically limited development of housing at the airport to low-density, single-family detached housing, the County Council amended the text of the ordinance to allow the development of higher-density housing in order to incentivize redevelopment of the airport. Constituents brought the underlying challenge, arguing that the ordinance violated Maryland's uniformity requirement, Md. Code Ann., Land Use 22-201(b)(2)(i). The circuit court denied relief, but the appellate court reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the ordinance did not discriminate against similarly situated parties and was adopted to further a valid public purpose; and (2) therefore, the ordinance should have survived the uniformity challenge. View "Prince George's County Council v. Concerned Citizens of Prince George's County" on Justia Law

The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment of the superior court denying Appellants' Me. R. Civ,. P. 80B petition for review of government action and affirming the decision of the Portland Planning Board to approve 37 Montreal LLC's application to construct a multi-unit residential building, holding that the Planning Board did not err in approving the application.On appeal, Appellants argued that the proposed development failed to meet the City of Portland's Code of Ordinance's height, setback, and design-review requirements, and therefore, the Planning Board erred in approving the application. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the judgment below and remanded the matter to the Planning Board for findings of fact, holding that judicial review was impossible because the Planning Board's decision did not contain any of the required findings. View "Murray v. City of Portland" on Justia Law

In 2015, the Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) began constructing a diamond interchange and installing a drainage system on property abutting Interstate 70 (“I-70”) in Washington County, Pennsylvania. The property’s owner, Appellant Donald Bindas, petitioned for the appointment of a board of viewers, seeking compensation for this encumbrance upon his land. PennDOT asserted that its predecessor, the Department of Highways (“DOH”), had secured a highway easement for the land in question in 1958. Both the trial court and the Commonwealth Court agreed, dismissing Bindas’ suit. Upon its review of the statutory authority that PennDOT invoked, as well as the record, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that DOH’s failure to comply with the requirements of 36 P.S. § 670-210 rendered that easement invalid. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Commonwealth Court’s order, and remanded with the instruction that PennDOT’s preliminary objections be overruled. View "Bindas. v. PennDOT" on Justia Law

The Day family and Trust B of the Donald M. Day and Marjorie D. Day Family Trust appealed a district court’s decision to grant the Idaho Transportation Department’s (“ITD”) motion for involuntary dismissal. ITD cross-appealed, arguing that the district court erred in denying its request for attorney fees under Idaho Code section 12-120(3). In 1961, the Days learned that access to their property via public highways would be affected when the state highway converted to a controlled-access federal interstate highway, then known as Interstate 80. The Days entered into a preliminary agreement with the Idaho Department of Highways (“IDH,” predecessor to ITD) that allowed IDH to take possession of approximately nine acres of the Day Property for construction of the interstate. In 1967, the Days entered into a right-of-way contract with IDH in furtherance of the 1961 Agreement. The 1967 Contract included an agreement for IDH to provide access to a future frontage road from I-80 to the Day Property. In the 1990s, the State began construction on the Isaacs Canyon Interchange near the Day Property. The Interchange Project eliminated a portion of the original 50-foot right of way that provided access to the Day Property under the 1967 Contract. Because of this, ITD provided replacement access easements to the Day Property. These replacement access easements were located southwest of the Interstate. The Days informed ITD the family was dissatisfied with the replacement easements and did not think they afforded the Days equivalent access to what they had prior to the construction of the Interchange. The Days sold the property to Edmonds Groves Land Holdings Inc. (“Groves”) in 2005, with the purchase price secured by a mortgage held by the Day Family. Groves later defaulted in its mortgage agreement with the Days during the recession in December of 2008. As a result, ownership of the Day Property reverted to the Day Family by way of deed in lieu of foreclosure. After the Days reacquired the property, they had difficulty obtaining title insurance because of concerns that “the access easement was owned by ITD and [the Days] did not have any statement that the easement was for the benefit of the Days.” They sued alleging inverse condemnation, and breach of contract. Finding no reversible error in the district court's dismissal, the Idaho Supreme Court affirmed. View "Day v. Idaho Transportation Department" on Justia Law

International sought permission to erect two two-sided billboards in the City of Troy. These billboards were to be 14 by 48 feet in area and 70 feet in height when mounted; they did not conform to height, size, and setback requirements in the Ordinance. After the City denied its permit application and request for a variance, International sued, citing the First Amendment and arguing that the Ordinance’s variance procedure imposed an invalid prior restraint and that its permit exceptions were content-based restrictions on free speech. The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment to the City on International’s prior-restraint claim but remanded for the court to consider whether the Ordinance, with the permit exceptions, survived strict scrutiny.The district court held that the permitting requirements, with the content-based exceptions. did not survive strict scrutiny but that the permit exceptions are severable, leaving intact the Ordinance’s height, size, and setback requirements. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. International’s proposed billboards do not satisfy those valid, content-neutral standards, View "International Outdoor, Inc. v. City of Troy" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court in favor of the Town of Exeter in this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief challenging the Town's decision to amend its zoning ordinance, which prevented Plaintiff from developing three commercial solar-field projects in Exeter, holding that Plaintiff was not entitled to relief on its allegations of error.On appeal, Plaintiff challenged several aspects of the superior court's judgment denying Plaintiff's request to enjoin enforcement of an emergency moratorium ordinance preventing review of Plaintiff's solar-field projects and to declare that Plaintiff's solar-field projects were vested pursuant to R.I. Gen. Laws 45-24-44. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under this Court's understanding of the relevant law, the trial court properly entered judgment in favor of the Town. View "Green Development, LLC v. Town of Exeter" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Jeffrey Raymond, as Trustee of J&R Realty Trust, appealed a superior court order affirming a decision of the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) for the Town of Plaistow denying the plaintiff’s variance request and upholding the zoning determination of the town’s Building Inspector (BI). Plaintiff argued the court erred in affirming the ZBA’s decision because: (1) the record supported plaintiff’s contention that its proposed use of the property falls within the definition of a Trade Business; and (2) the ZBA unlawfully considered prior zoning violations at other properties operated by plaintiff’s anticipated tenant when making its determinations. After review, the New Hampshire Supreme Court concluded that, based upon the plain language of the town’s zoning ordinance, plaintiff’s proposed use of the property constituted a Trade Business. Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court’s order upholding the ZBA’s decision denying plaintiff’s appeal of the BI’s zoning determination. View "Raymond v. Town of Plaistow" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Dakota Constructors, Inc.'s petition for a writ of certiorari challenging the decision of the Hanson County Board of Adjustment that Dakota would need a conditional use permit (CUP) under a Hanson County ordinance in order to extract sand, gravel, and rock from the property at issue.In 2021, Dakota purchased the property: a quarry located in Hanson County that had operated under a state license since 1986 to mine sand, gravel, and rock. The ordinance took effect in 2000. Dakota Constructors submitted a CUP application but argued that it did not need a CUP because the operation of the quarry was a continuing prior nonconforming use. The Hanson County Board of Adjustment disagreed and granted the CUP application with specified conditions. The circuit court denied Dakota's ensuing petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Dakota failed to show that the Board's reading of the word "extraction" was contrary to the ordinance, contrary to state statute, or otherwise wrong or erroneous. View "Dakota Constructors, Inc. v. Hanson County Bd. of Adjustment" on Justia Law

The City of Los Angeles (the City) approved a project at 1719-1731 North Whitley Avenue in Hollywood (the Project) that would replace 40 apartments subject to the City’s rent stabilization ordinance (RSO) with a hotel. The City determined the Project was exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines relating to certain development projects. The relevant guideline addresses what is often referred to as the “infill” exemption or the “Class 32” exemption. Respondent United Neighborhoods for Los Angeles (United Neighborhoods) sought a writ of mandate in the Los Angeles Superior Court, arguing, among other things, that the in-fill exemption does not apply because the Project is not consistent with a General Plan policy concerning the preservation of affordable housing. The trial court granted the writ, effectively halting the Project until the City was to find the Project is consistent with that policy or 148-159 undertakes CEQA review. The City and real parties in interest appeal.   The Second Appellate District affirmed the order granting the petition for writ of mandate. The court explained that the City’s suggestion that the Project’s consistency with the Framework Element implies consistency “with the entirety of the General Plan” because of the Framework Element’s foundational role assumes, contrary to authority, the Framework Element stands in perfect harmony with the General Plan. However, the court explained that although it affirms the trial court, it does not suggest that the City was necessarily required to make formal findings that Housing Element policies are outweighed by competing policies favoring the Project. View "United Neighborhoods for L.A. v. City of L.A." on Justia Law