Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

In June 2015, Appalachian Materials submitted an application to the Ashe County Director of Planning for a permit to build an asphalt plant under the Polluting Industries Development Ordinance (PID Ordinance). The application included aerial images, topographical maps, a marked floorplan, and a pending state air quality permit application. The Planning Director initially indicated the application met the ordinance's requirements but could not issue a permit until the state permit was received. Public opposition led to a temporary moratorium on polluting industries in October 2015. Appalachian Materials received the state permit in February 2016, but the Planning Director denied the application in April 2016, citing proximity to commercial and residential buildings and other issues.The Ashe County Planning Board reversed the Planning Director's decision, finding the application was complete and met the PID Ordinance requirements. The Board determined the mobile shed and barn near the proposed site were not commercial buildings and that there were no material misrepresentations in the application. The superior court affirmed the Board's decision.The North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed the Board's decision, holding the application was not complete until the state permit was received, thus falling under the moratorium. The court also found the mobile shed and barn were commercial buildings, and the application did not meet the setback requirements.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed the Court of Appeals, holding the application was complete when initially submitted in June 2015, triggering the Permit Choice statutes. The court found the mobile shed and barn were not commercial buildings under the PID Ordinance and upheld the Board's determination that there were no material misrepresentations. The court directed the Board to issue the permit under the PID Ordinance. View "Ashe County v. Ashe Cnty. Plan. Bd" on Justia Law

After Hurricane Harvey in 2017, the City of Houston amended its ordinances to increase elevation requirements for construction in floodplains. A developer, The Commons of Lake Houston, Ltd., sued the City, claiming the amendments caused a regulatory taking of its property under the Texas Constitution. The developer argued that the new requirements rendered a significant portion of its property undevelopable, leading to financial losses.The trial court denied the City’s plea to the jurisdiction, but the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas reversed and dismissed the case. The appellate court held that the developer could not establish a valid takings claim because the City amended the ordinance as a valid exercise of its police power and to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) criteria.The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed the case and disagreed with the appellate court's reasoning. The Court held that a regulation could cause a compensable taking even if it results from a valid exercise of the government’s police power or is designed to comply with the NFIP. The Court also found that the developer’s claim was ripe for adjudication, as the City had effectively made it clear that the developer could not obtain the necessary permits under the new ordinance. Additionally, the Court determined that the developer had standing to assert its claim, as it possessed a vested interest in the property affected by the ordinance.The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings to determine whether the amended ordinance caused a compensable taking under the Texas Constitution. View "THE COMMONS OF LAKE HOUSTON, LTD. v. CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS" on Justia Law

Chris Shamro sought a writ of mandamus to compel the Delaware County Board of Elections to place a zoning referendum on the May 6, 2025 primary-election ballot. The referendum concerned a zoning amendment for a property in Brown Township owned by Henmick Brewery, L.L.C. The board of elections decertified the referendum from the ballot, finding that the petition did not contain the correct name of the zoning amendment, had a misleading summary, and was accompanied by a misleading map.The board of elections held a protest hearing and voted to sustain the protest and decertify the referendum. Shamro filed a complaint for a writ of mandamus, arguing that the board of elections abused its discretion. The board of elections and Henmick argued that the petition failed to comply with statutory requirements, including providing an accurate summary of the zoning amendment and modifications approved by the board of trustees.The Supreme Court of Ohio reviewed the case and found that the board of elections did not abuse its discretion or act in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions. The court concluded that the referendum petition’s summary was misleading because it did not include approved modifications to the zoning amendment. Therefore, the court denied the writ and Shamro’s request for attorney fees and expenses. View "State ex rel. Shamro v. Delaware County Board of Elections" on Justia Law

Juanita and Stephen Clark, Linda and Cliff Trebilcock, and Dan Gurney reside on Fuller Mountain Road in the Town of Phippsburg. Gurney has operated a firewood business from his property for thirty years. In September 2020, the Clarks and the Trebilcocks complained to the Town’s Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) that Gurney’s business was a nuisance under the Town’s Land Use Ordinance (LUO). The CEO found no violation, but the Clarks and the Trebilcocks appealed to the Board of Appeals (BOA), which found the business to be a nuisance. The Board of Selectmen (BOS) later found that Gurney had abated the nuisance.The Clarks and the Trebilcocks challenged the BOS’s decision in the Superior Court (Sagadahoc County), arguing that the BOS lacked authority to conduct a de novo review and that there were due process violations. The Superior Court affirmed the BOS’s decision, leading to the Clarks’ appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court concluded that the BOA’s findings were outside the scope of the current appeal but found that the BOS exceeded its authority and violated due process in its review. The Court held that the BOS did not have the authority to review the CEO’s decision and that the BOS’s role was limited to deciding whether a consent agreement could be achieved or if court action was necessary. The Court also found procedural due process violations due to the conduct of BOS Chair Julia House, who exhibited bias and engaged in ex parte communications.The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to the Superior Court with instructions to remand to the BOS for new proceedings without the participation of Chair Julia House. View "Clark v. Town of Phippsburg" on Justia Law

Austin Properties, LLC, submitted an application to the Shawnee City Council to build a multi-unit residential complex. The city council denied the application, leading Austin Properties to petition the district court to reverse the denial. The district court granted the City's motion for summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. Austin Properties then appealed to the Supreme Court of Kansas.The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, concluding that the City had followed the necessary procedures under the Shawnee Municipal Code (SMC) § 17.92.030. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, but based its reasoning on K.S.A. 12-757, a Kansas statute that dictates similar procedures for zoning amendments. Both courts found that the City had complied with the required procedures.The Supreme Court of Kansas reviewed the case and determined that both the SMC and K.S.A. 12-757 were applicable. The Court found that the City failed to comply with K.S.A. 12-757(d) when it did not vote on denial or return the application to the planning commission with an explanation after failing to approve the application with a 3/4 majority vote, as required by K.S.A. 12-757(f) due to a valid protest petition. The Court held that the procedures in K.S.A. 12-757(d) are still applicable even in the face of a valid protest petition under K.S.A. 12-757(f).The Supreme Court of Kansas reversed the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the district court. The case was remanded to the district court with instructions to rule in favor of Austin Properties and return the application to the City for action consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Austin Properties v. City of Shawnee " on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, Hari and Saranya Nagireddy, live next to a property owned by Willow Haven on 106th Street, LLC, which is being developed to house up to ten residents with Alzheimer’s disease and dementia. After Willow Haven obtained a building permit from Carmel, the Nagireddys sued, seeking a declaration that the proposed use would be a public nuisance as it would violate Carmel’s unified development ordinance (UDO). They also obtained a preliminary injunction against further construction.The Hamilton Superior Court denied Willow Haven’s motion to dismiss and issued a preliminary injunction, finding that the Nagireddys did not need to exhaust administrative remedies before the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) and were likely to succeed on their claim. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, with a majority holding that the Nagireddys were not required to exhaust administrative remedies and were likely to succeed on their nuisance claim. A dissenting judge argued that the UDO was ambiguous and should be interpreted to permit Willow Haven’s land use.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the preliminary injunction was improper. The court found that the Nagireddys did not prove they were likely to win their public-nuisance claim, as they did not show that Willow Haven’s proposed land use violated the UDO at this preliminary stage. The court noted that the UDO incorporates state and federal law, which may protect Willow Haven’s land use. The court reversed the trial court’s decision, vacated the injunction, and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Willow Haven on 106th St, LLC v. Nagireddy" on Justia Law

Rod Dorale built his house with a setback of seven feet three inches from the neighboring property line, violating the McCook County ordinance requiring a nine-foot setback. Greg and Patricia DeCramer, who own the adjacent property, appealed the McCook County Board of Adjustment's decision to grant Dorale a variance for the reduced setback. The DeCramers argued that the Board exceeded its authority by violating the governing statute and county ordinance.The circuit court denied the DeCramers' petition for a writ of certiorari, concluding that the Board had complied with the requirements for granting a variance under SDCL 11-2-53(2). The court noted that the Board determined the variance would not be offensive to the public and that undue hardship existed because Dorale would have to move the house. The court emphasized the limited nature of its review, stating it could not question the Board's decision or examine the facts leading to the variance request.The South Dakota Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the Board acted illegally and in excess of its authority by granting a variance that did not comply with SDCL 11-2-53(2) or the county ordinance. The Court noted that the Board did not find any special conditions or extraordinary circumstances that justified the variance. The Board's finding that there was "nothing extraordinary in this residential district" precluded it from granting the variance under the terms of the ordinance. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the circuit court's decision and remanded the case for the entry of an order vacating the variance granted by the Board. View "Decramer v. Dorale" on Justia Law

A developer purchased a historical property in Newton, Massachusetts, and began restoration work. The Newton Historical Commission issued a stop-work order, claiming the developer violated the permit by demolishing large portions of the building. The developer, 29 Greenwood, LLC, disagreed but complied with the order and submitted revised proposals, all of which were denied. The developer then filed a lawsuit, alleging a violation of the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution and state law.The case was initially filed in state court but was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The district court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the dispute was a typical zoning issue not rising to the level of a constitutional taking. The developer appealed the dismissal, arguing that the Commission acted in bad faith and would never permit the reconstruction.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the case. The court noted that two related actions were pending in state court, which could potentially resolve or narrow the federal constitutional issues. The court decided to abstain from ruling on the federal issues until the state court proceedings concluded, invoking the Pullman abstention doctrine. The court vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case with instructions to stay the federal proceedings pending the outcome of the state court cases. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs. View "29 Greenwood, LLC v. City of Newton" on Justia Law

James M. Day appealed a decision by the Town of Hiram Planning Board, which granted Brian and Sarah Schnell a conditional use permit to construct a microbrewery on a property in the Town’s Residential District. Day argued that the Board erred in its interpretation of the "need" factor required by the Town of Hiram’s Zoning Ordinance, which mandates consideration of the necessity of a particular location for the proposed use.The Superior Court (Oxford County) initially remanded the case to the Planning Board for findings of fact. After the Board reaffirmed its decision with additional findings, Day appealed again. The Superior Court then affirmed the Board’s decision, leading Day to appeal to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the Planning Board’s decision directly. The Court found that the Board had misinterpreted the "need" factor by focusing on the Schnells' lack of alternative properties rather than the community's need for the proposed microbrewery at that specific location. The Court clarified that the "need" factor should consider the community's need for the proposed use in the proposed location, not the applicant's personal need for that location.The Court vacated the Superior Court’s judgment and remanded the case to the Town of Hiram Planning Board for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Board may reopen the record to allow for additional evidence relevant to the correct interpretation of the "need" factor. View "Day v. Town of Hiram" on Justia Law

Sherran Wasserman agreed to sell land in Franklin County to Anthony Pham, contingent on the approval of a conditional use permit by the Franklin County Board of Commissioners. Pham applied for the permit to build and operate chicken houses, but the Board denied the application. Wasserman then sued the Board and the County, initially bringing multiple claims under state and federal law. She dismissed some claims, conceded others, and the trial court dismissed her remaining state-law claims due to sovereign immunity. This left two federal claims: one alleging the County violated Pham’s equal protection rights based on race, and another alleging a violation of Wasserman’s equal protection rights as a “class of one.”The trial court denied the County’s motion for summary judgment, applying the federal doctrine of third-party standing, which allows a plaintiff to assert the rights of third parties. The court found genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on standing and the merits of Wasserman’s equal protection claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Wasserman lacked third-party standing and that her “class of one” claim failed as a matter of law.The Supreme Court of Georgia reviewed whether a plaintiff may rely on the federal doctrine of third-party standing to establish constitutional standing in Georgia courts. The court held that Georgia’s constitutional standing requirements, rooted in the common law and consistent precedent, do not allow a plaintiff to maintain an action by asserting only the rights of a nonparty. The court overruled its previous adoption of the federal doctrine of third-party standing, concluding that a plaintiff must assert her own legal rights to invoke the judicial power of Georgia courts. The judgment was vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "WASSERMAN v. FRANKLIN COUNTY" on Justia Law