Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

Several general law cities in California challenged the constitutionality of a state law, Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9), which requires local agencies to ministerially approve two-unit housing projects and urban lot splits in single-family residential zones. The cities argued that SB 9 usurps their authority over local land use and zoning, imposes a uniform approach that disregards local needs and conditions, and is not reasonably related to its stated goal of ensuring access to affordable housing, as it does not mandate affordability for new units.The Superior Court of Los Angeles County reviewed the cities’ complaint and the state’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and demurrer. The trial court concluded that, as general law cities, the plaintiffs could not invoke the municipal affairs doctrine under article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution, which provides certain protections only to charter cities. The court also found that the cities failed to identify any constitutional provision that SB 9 violated and determined there was no reasonable likelihood that the complaint could be amended to state a viable cause of action. Judgment was entered in favor of the state, and the cities appealed.The California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Four, affirmed the trial court’s judgment. The appellate court held that general law cities are not protected by the municipal affairs doctrine and must yield to conflicting state law. The court further found that the cities did not identify a constitutional right that SB 9 violated and failed to show that the statute was unconstitutional on its face or as applied. The court also concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint, as no viable claim could be stated. View "City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. State" on Justia Law

Arron and Arthur Benedetti, along with the Estate of Willie Benedetti, challenged a provision in Marin County’s amended local coastal program (LCP) that allows owners of certain farmland to build additional residential units only if they record a restrictive covenant. This covenant requires the owner of the new units to be actively and directly engaged in agriculture, either through direct involvement in commercial agriculture or by leasing the property to a commercial agricultural producer. The Benedettis, who inherited farmland and sought to build a second residence, argued that this provision was facially unconstitutional, claiming it violated the nexus and proportionality requirements established in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, and infringed upon their substantive due process rights by compelling them to work in a specific occupation.The Marin County Superior Court initially ruled that the Benedettis could not bring a facial takings challenge under Nollan/Dolan and, applying rational basis review, denied their petition and complaint based on their due process theory. The trial court sustained a demurrer to one cause of action and denied relief on the others, leading to the Benedettis’ appeal.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that, contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the Benedettis could raise a facial Nollan/Dolan claim. However, the court found that the restrictive covenant requirement had a sufficient nexus and rough proportionality to the county’s interest in preserving agricultural land and did not violate substantive due process. The court applied rational basis review and determined the provision was reasonably related to a legitimate legislative goal. The judgment of the Marin County Superior Court was affirmed. View "Benedetti v. County of Marin" on Justia Law

A dispute arose when a private company constructed and operated a large LED billboard on property owned by a state agency, the Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce (MDAC), within the City of Jackson. The billboard was built pursuant to a licensing agreement between MDAC and the company, Busby Outdoor, LLC, and was located on the State Fairgrounds. The City of Jackson, joined by other plaintiffs, claimed that the billboard violated the City’s sign and zoning ordinances because it was erected without a permit or variance and sought to enjoin its operation, also alleging it constituted a public nuisance.The Hinds County Chancery Court reviewed the matter after the City, The Lamar Company, LLC, and a former mayor filed suit. The court required MDAC to be added as a necessary party. After considering motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, the chancery court found that the City had standing but dismissed the other plaintiffs for lack of standing. The court held that MDAC and Busby were required to comply with the City’s sign ordinance, though it found the zoning ordinance did not apply due to a specific exemption for state institutions. The court further determined the billboard was a public nuisance because of its violation of the sign ordinance and issued an injunction halting its operation until compliance.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reviewed the case de novo. The Court held that, absent a specific statutory provision subjecting the state or its agencies to municipal ordinances, the City could not enforce its sign ordinance against the state on state-owned property. The Court found that the relevant statutes did not expressly or by necessary implication grant the City such authority over MDAC’s property. Accordingly, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the chancery court’s judgment, vacated the injunction, and rendered judgment in favor of MDAC and Busby, dismissing the City’s complaint with prejudice. View "Busby Outdoor LLC v. City of Jackson" on Justia Law

A property owner purchased a 17.547-acre parcel in North Kohala, Hawai‘i Island, in 2018. According to the official 1974 State Land Use District Boundaries map, about 4.794 acres of the property are within the conservation district, and the remainder is in the agricultural district. The owner contended that the conservation district boundary was incorrectly drawn, following the location of an old road rather than a newer road built in 1961. If the boundary had followed the newer road, 1.813 acres currently classified as conservation would have been agricultural. The owner petitioned the Land Use Commission (LUC) for a declaratory order to interpret the boundary under Hawai‘i Administrative Rules (HAR) § 15-15-22, arguing that the map contained a mistake and that the boundary should be corrected.The LUC held a public hearing, where the property owner presented evidence and testimony. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development opposed the petition, stating there was insufficient reason to believe the official boundary was incorrect. The County of Hawai‘i took no position. The LUC unanimously denied the petition, finding that the evidence was not “conclusive” or “compelling” enough to show a mapping error or that the boundary was intended to follow the newer road. The LUC concluded that the map was properly drawn and that the boundary interpretation provided by staff was correct.The property owner appealed to the Circuit Court for the Third Circuit, and the appeal was transferred to the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i. The Supreme Court held that, absent rulemaking to the contrary, the proper burden of proof for factual findings in such proceedings is the preponderance of the evidence standard. Because the LUC applied a heightened burden of proof, the Supreme Court vacated the LUC’s order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the preponderance of the evidence standard. View "Honoipu Hideaway, LLC v. State" on Justia Law

A property owner challenged an annual assessment levied by a city for the maintenance of landscaping and lighting improvements within a maintenance district. The assessment, originally set at $196.23 per residential lot in 1996, had increased to $300 per lot by the 2022–2023 tax year. The property owner argued that this increase violated Proposition 218, a constitutional amendment that restricts local governments’ ability to impose or increase taxes, assessments, and fees without voter approval. The city had not submitted the assessment to voters after Proposition 218’s passage, asserting that the assessment was exempt from Proposition 218’s requirements as a preexisting assessment for certain public services.The Superior Court of California, County of Solano, found in favor of the city. The court determined that the assessment was exempt from Proposition 218 and that the increase to $300 did not constitute an “increase” under the law because it did not exceed a range established before Proposition 218 took effect. Judgment was entered for the city, and the property owner appealed.The California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Five, reviewed the case. The appellate court held that the assessment had been “increased” within the meaning of Proposition 218 and the implementing statutes because the per-lot rate was higher than the rate in effect when Proposition 218 became law. The court rejected the city’s argument that a flat per-lot assessment does not involve a “rate” and found that the statutory definition of “rate” includes a per-parcel amount. The court also concluded that only ranges adopted in compliance with Proposition 218’s procedures could shield subsequent increases from voter approval requirements. The judgment was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court’s opinion. View "Thacker v. City of Fairfield" on Justia Law

The case concerns an agreement between the City of Fairfield and the Solano Irrigation District, initiated at the request of Solano County, to treat raw water for a new mixed-use development in Middle Green Valley, an unincorporated area outside Fairfield’s city limits. Under the agreement, the City would treat water supplied by the District and return it as potable water, while the District would handle distribution, operations, maintenance, and billing. The development, approved by the County, includes residential units and preserves a significant portion of land for agriculture and open space. The City asserted that providing such water treatment services outside its boundaries was consistent with its practices and rights.After the City Council approved the agreement, the Solano County Orderly Growth Committee filed a petition in the Solano County Superior Court, arguing that the agreement violated the City’s 2002 General Plan and California’s Planning and Zoning Law by providing municipal services for development outside the city’s urban limit line. The Superior Court granted the petition, finding the agreement inconsistent with the General Plan and invalidating it.On appeal, the California Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Two, reviewed whether state law required the agreement to be consistent with the City’s General Plan and, if so, whether the City’s determination of consistency was reasonable. The appellate court held that California law does not require such agreements to be consistent with a city’s general plan unless specifically mandated by statute, which was not the case here. Even assuming a consistency requirement, the court found the City’s determination that the agreement was consistent with its General Plan to be reasonable. The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court’s judgment, thereby upholding the agreement. View "Solano County Orderly Growth Committee v. City of Fairfield" on Justia Law

Aaron Powers owned a lot within a subdivision governed by covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&Rs), as well as an adjacent parcel he intended to develop. The adjacent parcel lacked access to a public or private road, so Powers sought to construct a road across a sixty-foot strip of his lot to provide access. After the homeowners association (HOA) denied permission, Powers obtained a boundary line adjustment and amended plat from Teton County, effectively moving the strip into the adjacent parcel. Carl Jordan, a subdivision homeowner and HOA board member, filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the road’s construction, arguing that the CC&Rs still applied to the strip and prohibited the road.The District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, Teton County, granted summary judgment for Jordan, declaring that the CC&Rs continued to apply to the strip, that Powers violated the CC&Rs by splitting the lot, and that the CC&Rs categorically prohibited construction of the road. The court issued a permanent injunction against Powers and awarded attorney fees and costs to Jordan. Powers moved for reconsideration, which was denied, and he appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court held that the CC&Rs continued to apply to the sixty-foot strip despite the boundary adjustment and that Powers was required to obtain approval from the HOA’s Design Committee before constructing the road, which he had not done. However, the Court reversed the lower court’s declaration that the CC&Rs categorically prohibited road construction and that the boundary adjustment constituted a prohibited lot split, finding those issues either unsupported or moot. The permanent injunction and the award of attorney fees and costs were vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings. Neither party was awarded attorney fees on appeal. View "Jordan v. Powers" on Justia Law

A group of seven property owners and part-time residents in Northeast Harbor challenged the approval of a six-unit subdivision proposed by Mount Desert 365 (MD 365) on a 0.9-acre parcel. The subdivision, called Heel Way, was designed to provide workforce housing and consisted of two double-dwelling-unit buildings and two single-dwelling-unit buildings on a commonly owned lot. The Town of Mount Desert Planning Board held nine meetings, considered input from the developer, residents, and the public, and ultimately approved the application in October 2023, issuing a written decision in December 2023.The residents sought judicial review in the Maine Superior Court, which transferred the case to the Business and Consumer Docket. In June 2024, the Business and Consumer Docket affirmed the Planning Board’s decision, and the residents appealed to the Maine Supreme Judicial Court.The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed the Planning Board’s decision directly, applying de novo review to the ordinance interpretation. The Court held that the Planning Board correctly determined that the subdivision did not create separate lots and thus did not need to meet access-road requirements. The Planning Board also did not abuse its discretion in waiving the performance bond in favor of a conditional agreement. The Court affirmed the Planning Board’s calculation of density requirements, finding no error in its methodology.However, the Court found that the Planning Board erred by declining to calculate the open-space requirements under the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance. The Court vacated the judgment and remanded the matter to the Business and Consumer Docket with instructions to remand to the Planning Board for further consideration of the open-space calculation. View "Cannon v. Town of Mount Desert" on Justia Law

Several individuals and organizations, including landowners and agricultural groups, challenged North Dakota statutes governing the underground storage of carbon dioxide and oil or gas, as well as laws permitting pre-condemnation surveys on private property. The plaintiffs own or represent owners of “pore space” in underground geological formations, which is used for carbon dioxide sequestration projects overseen by the North Dakota Industrial Commission (NDIC). The plaintiffs argued that the statutes authorizing amalgamation of pore space and pre-condemnation surveys violate constitutional protections against uncompensated takings and due process, and that certain statutory provisions constitute an improper delegation of legislative power.The District Court of Bottineau County granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that most of the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by a six-year statute of limitations, as the claims were facial challenges to statutes enacted more than six years prior. The court also found that the plaintiffs’ challenge to the oil and gas storage law was not viable as a facial challenge because it depended on future actions and factual circumstances. The court did not reach the merits of the constitutional claims.The Supreme Court of North Dakota reviewed the case and held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the provision allowing the NDIC to grant exceptions (N.D.C.C. § 38-22-03(7)) and the oil and gas storage amalgamation law (N.D.C.C. ch. 38-25), as they had not shown actual or threatened injury. However, the court found that the plaintiffs did have standing to challenge the carbon dioxide storage amalgamation provisions (N.D.C.C. ch. 38-22). The court ruled that the district court erred in dismissing these claims as time-barred, as the claims accrued when the NDIC acted under the statutes, not when the statutes were enacted. The court affirmed dismissal of the pre-condemnation survey law claims, but on the basis of binding precedent, not the statute of limitations. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Northwest Landowners Association v. State" on Justia Law

The dispute centers on a cul-de-sac constructed by the plaintiff in Laconia in the late 1980s. The plaintiff indicated on a 1987 subdivision plan that the cul-de-sac would be built and deeded to the City, and lots were sold based on that plan. However, the cul-de-sac was never formally deeded to the City, though the City maintained it until 2019, and it has been used by the public and public services since its construction. In 2019, the plaintiff sought to remove the cul-de-sac and replace it with a hammerhead turnaround, but the planning board denied this request.After the planning board’s denial, the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court, which found that the cul-de-sac had never been accepted by the City and remained private property. Subsequently, intervenors petitioned the City Council to lay out the cul-de-sac as a public highway under New Hampshire law. The City Council approved the layout, and the plaintiff appealed to the Superior Court. Both sides moved for summary judgment on whether there was “occasion” to lay out the road as a public highway. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the intervenors, finding that the plaintiff had dedicated the cul-de-sac for public use and that the public interest outweighed the plaintiff’s private interest.The Supreme Court of New Hampshire reviewed the case and affirmed the Superior Court’s decision. The Court held that the plaintiff’s dedication of the cul-de-sac created a public easement and vested the public with a right to accept the road, limiting the plaintiff’s rights to use the property in ways that would interfere with public use. The Court also found that the public interest in the cul-de-sac outweighed both the plaintiff’s private interest and the burden on the City, thus satisfying the statutory “occasion” requirement for laying out a public highway. The judgment in favor of the intervenors was affirmed. View "Taylor Community v. City of Laconia" on Justia Law