Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

George Stanley filed a complaint against the Town of Greene alleging that the Town was interfering with his flea market business on his property by denying him a license. The Town counterclaimed against Stanley, seeking injunctive relief and fines for Stanley’s continued operation of his unlicensed flea market in violation of a town Ordinance. The superior court ultimately granted the Town’s motions to dismiss Stanley’s complaint for for default judgment on its counterclaim. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in (1) denying Stanley’s motion for a temporary restraining order; (2) denying Stanley’s motions to set aside the default or for relief from default judgment; (3) denying Stanley’s motion to continue; and (4) denying Stanley’s motion for reconsideration. View "Stanley v. Town of Greene" on Justia Law

Under the Washington State Medical Use of Cannabis Act (MUCA), chapter 69.51A RCW, qualifying patients could participate in "collective gardens" to pool resources and grow medical marijuana for their own use. However, MUCA granted cities and towns the power to zone the "production, processing, or dispensing" of medical marijuana. Given this law, the city of Kent enacted a zoning ordinance that prohibited collective gardens within its city limits. The issue for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether MUCA preempted the Ordinance. The Court held that it did not and affirm the Court of Appeals: the Ordinance was a valid exercise of the city of Kent's zoning authority recognized in RCW 69.51A.l40(1) because the Ordinance merely regulated land use activity. View "Cannabis Action Council v. City of Kent" on Justia Law

Banning Ranch was a 400-acre parcel of largely undeveloped coastal property with active oilfield facilities and operations. Project proponents sought to develop one-fourth of Banning Ranch for residential and commercial purposes, and to preserve the remaining acreage as open space and parks, removing and remediating much of the oil production equipment and facilities. The City of Newport Beach and its City Council (collectively the City) approved the Project. Banning Ranch Conservancy filed a mandamus action against the City. The trial court agreed with the Conservancy’s claim that the City violated the Planning and Zoning Law and its own general plan by its alleged failure to adequately coordinate with the California Coastal Commission before its approval of the Project. The court rejected the Conservancy’s claim that the City violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to identify in the environmental impact report (EIR) the “environmentally sensitive habitat areas” (ESHAs). All interested parties appealed. After review, the Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s CEQA ruling but concluded the court erred by finding the City violated its general plan. Therefore the Court reversed the judgment to the extent it provided mandamus relief to the Conservancy. View "Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach" on Justia Law

In this eminent domain proceeding, plaintiff Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (SAFCA) acquired a fee simple interest in, a roadway easement over, and a temporary construction easement over a portion of defendant Ranjit Dhaliwal’s roughly 131-acre property in the Natomas Basin for use in connection with the Natomas Levee Improvement Program. The jury awarded Dhaliwal $178,703 for the property taken and $29,100 in severance damages. Brinderjit Dhaliwal and Gurdeep Dhaliwal, as co-executors of Dhaliwal’s estate, appealed the compensation award, arguing mainly that the trial court prejudicially erred in allowing SAFCA to introduce evidence concerning “future access” to the property. He claimed that such evidence was speculative because “[a]fter this case is concluded, the County and SAFCA would be able to deny Dhaliwal access to the property,” leaving him landlocked. After review, the Court of Appeal concluded that the trial court did not err in admitting the challenged evidence because such evidence had the potential to affect the property’s market value, and was not conjectural, speculative, or remote, and did not contradict the scope of the taking as defined by the resolution of necessity. Dhaliwal also argued that the trial court erred in allowing SAFCA’s appraiser to critique his appraiser’s valuation of the property, and that SAFCA’s counsel committed misconduct during closing argument by commenting on Dhaliwal’s absence and referring to SAFCA’s inability to pay more than fair market value for the property. The Court of Appeal concluded that neither of these contentions had merit, and affirmed the trial court's ruling on those. View "Sacramento Area Flood Agency v. Dhaliwal" on Justia Law

Jefferson Street Ventures, LLC appealed a judgment rendered in favor of the City of Indio in this combined petition for writ of administrative mandamus/inverse condemnation action. In 2007, the City conditioned approval of Jefferson’s 2005 application for development of a shopping center upon Jefferson leaving approximately one-third of its property undeveloped to accommodate the reconstruction of a major freeway interchange that was in the planning stages. The City could not acquire the property at the time Jefferson’s development application was approved due to funding constraints imposed by the "byzantine planning and review process" for the interchange that involved various local, state, and federal agencies, and which the City did not anticipate being complete for at least a few more years. When Jefferson’s development application was being approved, City staff explained the City could not allow development on the part of the site designated for the interchange because the City would incur additional costs for the property if and when it was later taken for the interchange. Jefferson sued the City contending the development restrictions were invalid because they constituted an uncompensated taking of its property. Following a hearing on the writ petition, the trial court found the development restrictions were permissible and denied the writ. On appeal, Jefferson argued: (1) the trial court erred by denying its petition for writ of administrative mandate because the City’s development restrictions constituted an uncompensated taking; and (2) regardless of the ruling on the mandamus cause of action, the trial court erred by denying it a trial on its inverse condemnation claims. The Court of Appeal concluded the restrictions constituted a de facto taking of the development restricted portion of Jefferson’s property and the trial court erred by denying Jefferson’s petition for writ of mandate. View "Jefferson Street Ventures v. City of Indio" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Iowa City Board of Review reclassified eighteen properties from commercial to residential for property tax purposes because the properties had recently been organized as multiple housing cooperatives. Two Iowa corporations organized the cooperatives under chapter 499A of the Iowa Code. The City of Iowa City appealed, arguing that the Board’s reclassification was improper because two natural persons, not two corporations, must organize multiple housing cooperatives under the Code. The City also argued that the organizers did not properly organize the cooperatives because each cooperative had more apartment units than members and section 499A.11 requires a one-to-one ratio. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Board and the intervening housing cooperatives. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) two Iowa corporations may organize a multiple housing cooperative under chapter 499A; and (2) the Code does not require a one-apartment-unit-per-member ownership ratio for a multiple housing cooperative to be properly organized. View "City of Iowa City v. Iowa City Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

Dolphin Residential Cooperative, Inc. owned an apartment complex in Iowa City that consisted of twenty-two buildings comprising four hundred residential units. The Iowa City assessor classified the multiunit apartment buildings as commercial property for tax assessment purposes. Dolphin challenged this classification, arguing that because it was a multiple housing cooperative, organized under chapter 499A of the Iowa Code, the property should have been classified as residential property. The Iowa City Board of Review denied Dolphin’s request to reclassify the property, determining that because Dolphin was not properly organized under chapter 499A, Dolphin failed the organizational test for residential cooperatives adopted by the Supreme Court in Krupp Place 1 Coop, Inc. v. Board of Review. On appeal, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dolphin, concluding that Dolphin met the organizational test set forth in Krupp and ordering the Board to reclassify the subject property as residential property for tax assessment purposes. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Dolphin was not properly established under section 499A.1(1), and therefore, the district court erred when it granted summary judgment to Dolphin and denied summary judgment to the Board. View "Dolphin Residential Coop., Inc. v. Iowa City Bd. of Review" on Justia Law

The City of Richland began enforcing a zoning ordinance that regulated nonconforming uses, and as a result, prohibited Cleveland MHC, LLC from replacing mobile homes that were removed from its property. The circuit court upheld the City’s decision, and Cleveland MHC appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed. The City petitioned for certiorari review. The Supreme Court found that the City’s interpretation of the nonconforming use ordinance in its July 2011 resolution was both arbitrary and capricious and violated Cleveland MHC’s constitutional right to enjoy its property. The Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. The circuit court's decision was reversed and remanded. View "Cleveland MHC, LLC v. City of Richland" on Justia Law

Smith sought a conditional use permit (CUP) to build a 300-foot-tall cellular tower on a Washington County site zoned "Agriculture/Single-Family Residential." There are homes within one-quarter of a mile of the site. The Zoning Code authorizes a CUP upon findings: That the proposed use is compatible with the surrounding area; will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare; and will not be injurious to use and enjoyment of other property in the area for purposes already permitted, nor substantially diminish and impair property values within the area. The Planning Board approved the application. Neighbors appealed to the Quorum Court with arguments focused on "safety," "property values," the tower's "fit" with the area, proximity to their homes, and having purchased their homes specifically because of the surrounding scenery and views. Hearing participants discussed cellular phone reception; potential safety issues, particularly in inclement weather; proximity to residences; and impact on nearby residents' views and property values. The application was rejected. The district court and Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that Washington County failed to provide a legally adequate explanation of its reasons for denial and that the denial was not based on substantial evidence in violation of the Telecommunications Act, 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(7)(B). View "Smith Commc'ns, LLC v. Washington Cnty." on Justia Law

RI purchased 320 acres in Washington State for use as a landfill and, in 1989, applied for state permits. Because the proposed landfill involved filling wetland areas, it sought a Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. State permits issued in 1996. In 1994, the Corps required an Environmental Impact Statement; its draft EIS preliminarily concluded that RI had not demonstrated that there were no practicable alternatives to the proposed landfill (40 C.F.R. 230.10(a)). RI terminated the process. The Corps denied the application. In 1996, RI sued, alleging that the process and denial violated the CWA and was arbitrary. The district court upheld the decision, but the Ninth Circuit reversed, citing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6941, under which regulation of municipal solid waste in landfills constructed on wetlands lies solely with the EPA or states with EPA-approved programs. The landfill became operational in 1999. In 1998, while the Ninth Circuit appeal was pending, RI filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging unconstitutional taking. The court dismissed, citing 28 U.S.C. 1500: the Claims Court “shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States.” The Federal Circuit affirmed. View "Res. Inv., Inc. v. United States" on Justia Law