Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

Timothy Hale and Sonja Ringen constructed a storage building on their commercially zoned property in Laramie without first obtaining a building permit. When the City of Laramie discovered the construction, it issued a stop work order and a cease-and-desist letter. Despite these notices, Hale and Ringen continued building and subsequently applied for a permit, which the City denied due to deficiencies in the application. After further unsuccessful permit attempts and ongoing disputes over the City’s requirements—including requests for disassembly of the structure—the City sought and obtained a permanent injunction from the District Court of Albany County, restricting use of the building until permitting was complete and compliance was achieved.The District Court of Albany County conducted a bench trial in May 2022 and granted the City’s request for a permanent injunction. The court outlined a process for inspections, identification of code violations, and corrective actions, but continued conflict between the parties hindered progress. Multiple rounds of correspondence, inspections, and motions ensued, with the City insisting on structural disassembly and Hale/Ringen providing documentation to support their position. Hale and Ringen eventually moved to vacate the injunction, arguing it was no longer equitable given their efforts and the City’s refusal to issue a permit. The district court denied their motion, citing only the parties’ lack of agreement, and provided no substantive analysis of the evidence.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Wyoming determined that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the evidence and arguments presented before denying the motion to vacate or modify the injunction. The Supreme Court held that a court must exercise discretion and decide motions on their merits, rather than requiring agreement between adversarial parties. Consequently, the Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case for full consideration of Hale/Ringen’s motion in light of all relevant facts and equities. View "Hale v. City of Laramie" on Justia Law

A flea market operator in Durham, North Carolina, received a notice of violation (NOV) from the city's planning department following a field inspection. The NOV stated that the market had failed to comply with an approved site plan, referencing the city’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and warned of possible civil penalties unless corrective action was taken within thirty days. The NOV included copies of photographs and a copy of the site plan but did not specifically identify which aspects of the property were in violation or the specific corrective measures required.The market appealed the NOV to the City’s Board of Adjustment (BOA). At the quasi-judicial hearing, city staff explained that the NOV was intentionally broad because there were several violations, and listing each one would allow the market to fix only some issues. One BOA member expressed concern that the NOV’s lack of specificity failed to inform the market of the exact violations or needed corrections. Despite this, the BOA voted to deny the market’s appeal. The market then appealed to the Superior Court, Durham County, arguing that the NOV was too vague and did not comply with ordinance requirements. The superior court affirmed the BOA’s decision and ordered the market to come into compliance within thirty-six months. The market further appealed, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the NOV sufficient under the UDO.The Supreme Court of North Carolina reviewed the appeal and held that the NOV did not comply with the city’s ordinance because it failed to provide a description of the specific violations as required by UDO § 15.2.1.C. The court concluded that property owners must receive enough detail to understand the alleged violations and what corrective action is required. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded with instructions for the city to dismiss the NOV. View "Durham Green Flea Market v. City of Durham" on Justia Law

A developer challenged the legality of “recreation fees” imposed by a municipality on builders of new subdivisions. The developer argued that the town’s fees, charged in lieu of dedicating land for public recreation, either exceeded statutory limits or were unconstitutional because they were not proportionate to each development’s impact. The developer further alleged that the municipality did not use the fees as required, instead commingling them with general funds and failing to create or improve public recreation areas near the developments.In the Superior Court of Wake County, the developer pursued a putative class action seeking declaratory relief and a refund of all such fees paid since November 2017. The Superior Court certified a class including all payers of the recreation fees, finding several common legal questions appropriate for resolution on a class-wide basis. These included whether the fees violated statutory requirements, whether their calculation was legally proper, whether their use complied with statutory mandates, and whether they were constitutionally proportionate. The municipality appealed directly to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, arguing that individualized factual inquiries predominated over common issues and that a class action was not the superior method of adjudication.The Supreme Court of North Carolina held that the class as certified did not satisfy the predominance requirement for class actions. The Court explained that several claims—such as whether fees exceeded fair market value or were roughly proportional—would require individualized, fact-intensive determinations for each class member, resulting in mini-trials that would overwhelm the common legal issues. Consequently, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s class certification order and remanded for further proceedings, instructing the lower court to reconsider class certification in light of these findings. View "Empire Contractors Inc. v. Town of Apex" on Justia Law

A dispute arose between two competing billboard companies after one company constructed an electronic billboard in Gulfport, Mississippi. The company that operated existing billboards nearby filed suit, claiming that the new billboard violated a city ordinance enacted as part of a settlement resolving earlier litigation involving the city and the plaintiff. The defendant, along with related entities, countered with claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and challenged the plaintiff’s standing to bring the suit. The property owner on whose land the disputed billboard was constructed also became a party to the litigation.The litigation began in the Chancery Court of Harrison County, which denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, specifically rejecting their standing argument. The defendants removed the case to federal court, which remanded it and awarded costs to the plaintiff. After the defendants’ interlocutory appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of Mississippi, the case was transferred to circuit court. There, the court again denied summary judgment, and further unsuccessful dispositive motions were filed by the defendants. Over several years, the case involved multiple motions, removal, transfer, and appeals, with no claims proceeding to trial. Eventually, after the defendants transferred their interest in the billboard to a third party who settled with the plaintiff, the plaintiff moved to dismiss the case with prejudice. The Circuit Court of Harrison County granted the motion and denied the defendants’ subsequent request for attorney’s fees and costs, finding that much of the litigation expense was due to the defendants’ own aggressive litigation strategies, and declined to impose sanctions, concluding the suit was not frivolous.The Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the appeal, focusing on whether the trial court erred in denying attorney’s fees and sanctions to the defendants. The court held that the decision to award attorney’s fees or impose sanctions was within the trial court’s discretion, and found no abuse of discretion in denying fees or sanctions, affirming the dismissal with prejudice. View "Busby v. The Lamar Company, LLC" on Justia Law

A company sought approval to construct a 500 kW solar-energy project in Randolph, Vermont. The proposed project required a certificate of public good (CPG) from the Vermont Public Utility Commission (PUC). A portion of the project's infrastructure, such as its access road and interconnection line, would be located on land with slopes exceeding 25%. Local and regional planning commissions, as well as the Town of Randolph Selectboard, initially supported the project and jointly requested the site be designated as a “preferred site.” After neighbors raised concerns that some panels would be located on steep slopes in conflict with the Town Plan, the applicant agreed to revise the project so that no panels would be built on slopes over 25%. The Town conditioned its continued support on this revision and on receiving the final site plan.The PUC’s hearing officer initially recommended denying the CPG due to uncertainty about whether the Town’s conditions regarding slope measurement had been met. The PUC rejected this recommendation, refocusing on whether the Town itself was satisfied with the conditions. The applicant subsequently provided a letter from the Town confirming its support and satisfaction with the conditions. The PUC found the project's compliance with soil-erosion control measures sufficient, particularly in light of a stormwater permit issued by the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), and ruled that the project would not unduly interfere with the region’s orderly development. The PUC granted the CPG; the neighbors’ motion for reconsideration was denied, and they appealed.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case, giving deference to the PUC’s expertise and factual findings. The Court affirmed the PUC’s grant of the CPG, holding that the PUC correctly applied the legal standards under 30 V.S.A. § 248, properly considered the Town Plan’s land-conservation measures, reasonably relied on the Town’s assurances and ANR’s permit, and did not misapply its own rules regarding “preferred site” status. View "In re Petition of Randolph Davis Solar LLC" on Justia Law

A city in Alaska amended its zoning code through an ordinance designed to streamline permitting processes, reduce costs, and encourage development. The planning department reviewed the history of conditional use permits and identified certain uses that could be changed to permitted uses across multiple zoning districts. This proposed amendment underwent a series of public meetings and hearings before the city’s planning commission and city council. Notices about these meetings and the ordinance were published, and the ordinance was ultimately adopted by the city council after public participation and minor amendments.A resident challenged the ordinance in the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Third Judicial District, Homer, claiming the city failed to comply with procedural requirements in its code, did not provide adequate public notice, and that the ordinance lacked a legitimate government purpose, violating substantive due process. He also argued the ordinance was unenforceable and objected to the award of attorney’s fees to the city. The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of the city, finding no genuine issues of material fact, and awarded attorney’s fees to the city, concluding that the city was the prevailing party and the plaintiff’s constitutional claims were frivolous.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed the case. It held that the city code required only substantial, not strict, compliance with procedural rules and that the city had substantially complied. The court found the city’s public notices adequate and determined that the ordinance served a legitimate public purpose, rejecting claims of arbitrariness or vagueness. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees, finding no abuse of discretion, and concluded the constitutional claims were frivolous, thus not barring a fee award. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s rulings on all issues. View "Griswold v. City of Homer" on Justia Law

A city in California owned a downtown parking garage known as Garage 5, which was in poor condition and underutilized according to studies conducted in 2019 and 2022. The city had previously adopted a housing plan to identify public land suitable for housing development. In public meetings and study sessions throughout 2021 and 2022, city staff and consultants presented data showing declining demand for public parking and the high cost of necessary repairs to Garage 5. After further study and public comment, the city’s council passed a resolution in December 2022 declaring Garage 5 to be surplus land under the Surplus Land Act, provided that any future development retain at least 75 public parking spaces.The owner of nearby properties, Airport Business Center, filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory relief in Sonoma County Superior Court. The petitioner argued the city had violated the Surplus Land Act by declaring the garage surplus while there was still an ongoing need for public parking and contended that the city’s findings were not supported by the evidence. The Superior Court denied the petition, finding the city’s actions were not arbitrary or capricious, and that there was substantial evidentiary support for the resolution. A temporary stay was granted pending appeal, but the Court of Appeal denied a request for further stay.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Three, reviewed the case. It held that the Surplus Land Act’s requirement that property be “not necessary for the agency’s use” allows a city to designate property as surplus if it is not indispensable for agency operations, even if the property serves a public purpose like parking. The evidence supported the city’s determination, and the findings in the resolution satisfied statutory requirements. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, awarding costs to the city. View "Airport Business Center v. City of Santa Rosa" on Justia Law

A property owner in Los Angeles obtained a density bonus from the city in 2005, allowing him to build one additional housing unit beyond what zoning would otherwise permit, in exchange for agreeing to rent one of the units to low-income households for at least 30 years. This agreement was formalized and recorded against the property in 2006. The owner had previously taken out a mortgage, and the lender recorded its deed of trust against the property in 2005. After the owner defaulted, the lender foreclosed on the property in 2013. Several years later, new owners purchased the property, allegedly unaware of the recorded agreement requiring the low-income rental restriction.Following a notice from the City demanding compliance with the affordable housing agreement, the new owners filed suit in the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, seeking quiet title and declaratory relief. They argued that the affordable housing agreement, recorded after the original deed of trust, was a junior encumbrance extinguished by the foreclosure. The City countered that the agreement was a condition of a building permit and survived foreclosure. The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend, finding that the agreement was a covenant running with the land and survived foreclosure.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division One, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that the affordable housing agreement was equivalent to a “condition attached to a permit” under Government Code section 65009, subdivision (c)(1)(E), and thus survived foreclosure. Permit conditions that have not been timely challenged run with the land and remain enforceable against successor owners, even those who acquire the property through foreclosure. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim and were not entitled to amend their complaint. View "Rodriguez v. City of Los Angeles" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs, a microbrewery and its owner, operated a seasonal business in a tourist town and became known for engaging in political advocacy. The business applied for various permits to operate both an indoor retail outlet and, later, an outdoor beer garden. Despite being granted permits that included specific conditions—such as restrictions on outdoor operations—the plaintiffs repeatedly violated these conditions, operated without proper permits, and explicitly stated their intention to continue doing so regardless of regulatory decisions. Throughout this period, the owner was vocal in criticizing local officials on social media.After several rounds of permit applications, denials, suspensions, and revocations, the plaintiffs’ most recent permit application for an outdoor beer garden was denied by the county committee, which cited the plaintiffs’ ongoing and willful violations of permit conditions and their declared intent to continue such violations. The plaintiffs appealed administrative actions to the Oneida County Board of Adjustment, which upheld the revocations. Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, asserting that the permit denials and revocations constituted retaliation for protected political speech, in violation of the First Amendment. They sought a preliminary injunction to reinstate their permit and prevent further alleged retaliation.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s denial of the preliminary injunction and affirmed it. The Seventh Circuit held that, while the plaintiffs engaged in protected speech and suffered adverse permit actions, they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of their First Amendment retaliation claim. The court concluded that the permit denials and revocations were based on the plaintiffs’ repeated and admitted violations of permit conditions, not on retaliatory motives, and that the plaintiffs offered no evidence of disparate treatment or pretext. View "Minocqua Brewing Company LLC v Hess" on Justia Law

The plaintiffs in this case are entities that own and operate a four-story building in Kemah, Texas. The building houses a bar, residential rental units, and a food truck. The dispute began when, in July 2021, the city issued a zero-occupancy notice for the building after an inspection found multiple safety hazards, prohibiting anyone except the owner and repair contractors from entering. Plaintiffs allege this deprived them of almost all economic use of the property. Separately, the city took enforcement action against the food truck, culminating in its removal from the property in October 2021. Plaintiffs challenged the food truck towing in state court, but ultimately dropped their appeal. They then sued the city in federal court, raising federal and state takings, due process, and equal protection claims regarding both the zero-occupancy notice and the food truck towing, and sought declaratory relief.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the city’s motion to dismiss. The court found the claims related to the zero-occupancy notice were not ripe because plaintiffs had not pursued available administrative appeals to the city council, as allegedly required by city ordinances. The court dismissed the food truck claims on the merits, and dismissed the request for declaratory relief because no substantive claims remained.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the zero-occupancy notice claims as unripe. The appellate court determined that the city’s issuance of the zero-occupancy notice constituted a sufficiently final decision for purposes of ripeness and that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court reversed the dismissal of the zero-occupancy notice claims and remanded those claims, including the related request for declaratory relief, for further proceedings. However, the court found that the plaintiffs had waived their food truck claims by failing to adequately brief them on appeal and affirmed their dismissal. View "T&W Holding v. City of Kemah, Texas" on Justia Law