Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

In 1987, the village of Lodi passed an ordinance enacting Lodi Zoning Code 1280.05(a), which addresses discontinuation or abandonment of nonconforming uses. The final sentence of the ordinance states that the absence or removal of a mobile home from its lot constitutes discontinuance from the time of removal. As a result of the ordinance, Appellees were eventually not able to rent some of their mobile-home park lots and essentially lost a property right as to that portion of their property. Appellees filed a complaint against Lodi requesting a declaration that the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional and constituted a taking of their properties. The trial court granted summary judgment for Lodi. The court of appeals reversed, concluding that the ordinance was unconstitutional on its face. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the last sentence of the ordinance was an unconstitutional deprivation of a property right and may not be applied. Remanded. View "State ex rel. Sunset Estate Props., LLC, v. Village of Lodi" on Justia Law

In 2011 and 2012, the government brought enforcement actions against more than 80 facilities alleged to be selling and distributing marijuana for medicinal purposes in violation of the Los Angeles Municipal Code for public nuisance, the Narcotics Abatement Law, Health & Safety Code section 11570, and the state unfair competition law, Business & Professions Code section 17200. The complaints sought permanent injunctions, abatement of the nuisances and civil penalties. The trial court denied the government’s omnibus motion for summary judgment, reasoning that claims for penalties made under each of the statutory plans are elements of the causes of action alleged. The court of appeal vacated, holding that the penalties being sought are among the remedies available rather than elements of the causes of action alleged in the several complaints. View "People v. Cahuenga's The Spot" on Justia Law

In 2012, the Federal Circuit ruled that the U.S. Border Patrol’s placement of motion sensors on five separate parcels of land owned by Otay Mesa adjacent to the Mexican border in Southern California constituted the taking of permanent easements over the parcels. On remand, the Court of Federal Claims held that Otay was entitled to no damages for the taking of an easement over land that could be developed for industrial use; that it was entitled to damages of $455,520 for the taking of an easement over land that could be used for environmental mitigation purposes; and that interest on the $455,520 damages award should run from August 28, 2008, the date Otay became aware of the taking as a result of the filing of a stipulation of liability by the government. The Federal Circuit then affirmed the denial of damages with respect to the industrial development property and the award of $455,520 with respect to the mitigation property. The court vacated the computation of interest; Otay is entitled to interest computed from when sensors were first placed on its property. View "Otay Mesa Prop., L.P. v. United States" on Justia Law

The Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) extends roughly 200 miles into the ocean to the limit of U.S. international-law jurisdiction. Billions of barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas lie beneath the OCS. Concerns about ecological vulnerability and potential harm to coastal tourism led to moratoriums on OCS drilling from 1982 until they were partially lifted in 2009. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig disaster renewed debate about the safety of offshore drilling, but energy companies remain interested in offshore drilling. The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) created a framework for exploration and extraction of OCS oil and gas deposits. It requires the Secretary of the Interior to prepare a program every five years with a schedule of proposed leases for OCS resource exploration and development; the program must balance competing economic, social, and environmental values, 43 U.S.C. 1344. CSE challenged the latest leasing program as failing to comply with Section 18(a), which governs the balancing of competing economic, social, and environmental values; quantifying and assessing environmental and ecological impact; and ensuring equitable distribution of benefits and costs between OCS regions and stakeholders. CSE claimed that the Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement violated National Environmental Policy Act procedural requirements by using a biased analytic methodology and providing inadequate opportunities for public comment. The D.C. Circuit denied CSE’s petition. While CSE had associational standing to petition for review, its NEPA claims are unripe; two other challenges were forfeited and remaining challenges failed on their merits. View "Ctr. for Sustainable Econ. v. Jewell" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review centered on whether Act 250 jurisdiction extended to the siting and related construction proposed for the Vermont Air National Guard Base at the Burlington International Airport to accommodate the anticipated arrival of eighteen F-35A jets. Following a request for a jurisdictional opinion, the Environmental Division concluded that there was no Act 250 jurisdiction because the development served no state purpose and there was no material change to any existing permit. The requesting individuals appealed that decision, arguing that the proposed changes are development for a state purpose and subject to Act 250 review. Those individuals further contended that the project amounted to a substantial change to preexisting development on the Guard base, which required a permit, and a material change to an existing Act 250 permit, which required application for an amended permit. The Vermont Supreme Court concluded there was no Act 250 jurisdiction, and affirmed. View "In re Request for Jurisdictional Opinion re: Changes in Physical Structure and Use at Burlington International Airport for F-35A" on Justia Law

The owner of a tract of land divided the land into three lots, such that a single dwelling would stand on each lot, in conformance with the the subdivision control law’s existing structures exemption, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, 81L. The new lot at 87 Main Street did not conform to the town’s zoning bylaws and rendered the dwelling located thereon nonconforming. The zoning board of appeals granted a variance to make the lot and dwelling lawful. Plaintiff later acquired 87 Main Street and sought a permit to tear down the existing dwelling and construct a new dwelling. The zoning board denied the permit on zoning grounds. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the lot was entitled to grandfather protection under the Zoning Act because the dwelling predated the town’s zoning bylaw and the lot was created pursuant to section 81L. The Land Court determined that Plaintiff was required to obtain a variance. The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed, holding that because the new nonconformities arising from the creation of 87 Main Street were rendered lawful by the original variance, the proposed reconstruction of the dwelling, which would have expanded those nonconformities, required a new or amended variance from the town’s zoning bylaw. View "Palitz v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals" on Justia Law

The 22-acre Shuler ranch in Soma is below 1000 acres owned by Sunshine Agriculture. After agricultural operations expanded up the hillside, it collapsed onto the Shuler property. The Shulers sued, alleging: "Defendants . . . were responsible for the removal of historic watercourses and stable ground cover and also for unreasonable grading, irrigation, planting and maintenance of the hillside slope. . . . acted negligently in failing to take steps to prevent the land from collapsing. . . . [T]he harm was foreseeable because of the steepness of the slope and nature of its soil." The Shuler's engineering expert found that the slope was unsuitable for development and that the alteration of the water courses and the introduction of irrigation for 1000 trees were the most significant factors responsible for the foreseeable slope failure. Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to join an indispensable party: Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which prepared engineering drawings and calculations in support of the erosion control plan approved by the Ventura County Resource Conservation District. The trial court found that NRCS was a necessary, indispensable party and a federal agency not amenable to suit in state court. The Shulers filed a federal action, naming the same defendants, with the government as an additional defendant. The California Court of Appeal affirmed dismissal of the state suit. View "Dreamweaver Andalusians, LLC v. Prudential Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted appellant Paul Kanitra’s application to address whether, as a holdover member of the City of Greensboro Planning and Zoning Board (the “Board”), he could only be removed for cause or whether the City Council of the City of Greensboro had the authority to replace him with a successor without regard to cause. After review, the Supreme Court concluded (as did the trial court) that the City Council had authority to appoint someone to replace appellant without regard to cause. View "Kanitra v. City of Greensboro" on Justia Law

The issue this case presented for the Supreme Court's review stemmed from attempts by the Water Users’ Association of the Broadford Slough and Rockwell Bypass Lateral Ditches, Inc. (Association) to collect assessments from Big Wood Ranch, LLC (BWR) for maintenance performed by the Association on the Broadford Slough (Slough) and Rockwell Bypass (Bypass), which were conduits for the delivery of surface water to property owned by BWR and some of its neighbors. The Association claimed it has a statutory right to collect assessments for its maintenance of this water delivery system. BWR disputed that claim. On summary judgment, the district court determined that the Association was validly formed pursuant to Idaho Code section 42-1301, and, after a bench trial, found BWR owed payment for these outstanding assessments. BWR appealed, challenging the validity of the Association’s formation under the statute, as well as the court’s alternative contract and equity-based theories for granting judgment in favor of the Association. Upon review, the Supreme Court found: (1) the Association was not qualified to operate pursuant to Idaho Code section 42-1301; (2)the district court erred by alternatively granting judgment to the Association on unpled contract and equity-based theories; and (3) BWR was entitled to attorney fees and costs on appeal. View "Big Wood Ranch v. Water Users' Assn. of the Broadford Slough & Rockwell Bypass Lateral Ditches, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2004, Berkeley issued a use permit for construction of a building with 51 residential rental units and ground floor commercial space. Permit condition 10 provides: “Before submission for building permit, the applicant shall submit floor plans and schedules … showing the location of each inclusionary unit and the sales or rental prices…. and that the unit rent or sales price complies with Chapter 23C.12” (Inclusionary Housing Ordinance). The Ordinance was designed to comply with Government Code section 65580, requiring a general plan to contain a housing element stating how the local agency will accommodate its share of regional need for affordable housing. The ordinance requires that 20 percent of all newly constructed residential units be reserved for households with below-median incomes and rented at below-market prices. The development took more than seven years. The city sought a declaration that the condition was valid, conceding that the ordinance has been preempted by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act (Civ. Code, 1954.50), but arguing that it may enforce the condition, the validity of which was not previously challenged. The court of appeal affirmed judgment in favor of the city. View "City of Berkeley v. 1080 Delaware, LLC" on Justia Law