Justia Zoning, Planning & Land Use Opinion Summaries

A group of neighbors opposed the development of a public sports park on a 65-acre parcel in Maui. The State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) sought and received a special use permit from the County of Maui Planning Commission to build the park. Several future members of the neighbors’ group, Maui Lani Neighbors, Inc. (MLN), received notice of the permit hearing, attended, and some testified, but none formally intervened in the proceedings. After the permit was granted, one future MLN member filed an administrative appeal but later dismissed it. MLN was then incorporated and filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, challenging the permit on zoning, environmental, constitutional, and procedural grounds.The Circuit Court of the Second Circuit dismissed most of MLN’s claims, holding that they should have been brought as an administrative appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes (HRS) § 91-14, and that MLN failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) affirmed, but with different reasoning on some points. The ICA held that the administrative process provided an exclusive remedy for most claims, but allowed that some environmental claims under HRS chapter 343 (the Hawai‘i Environmental Policy Act, or HEPA) could proceed in circuit court if they did not seek to invalidate the permit.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i affirmed the ICA’s judgment in most respects, but clarified that MLN’s claims under HRS chapter 343 were not subject to the exhaustion doctrine and could be brought directly in circuit court. The court held that, except for HEPA claims, MLN was required to challenge the permit through an administrative appeal, and that the declaratory judgment statute (HRS § 632-1) did not provide an alternative route. The court remanded the case to the circuit court to consider the HEPA-based claims. View "Maui Lani Neighbors v. State" on Justia Law

In 1922, the Territory of Hawai‘i issued a Land Patent for a 3.99-acre property to a trustee for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, with a deed restriction requiring the property to be used “for Church purposes only.” If used otherwise, the property would revert to the Territory. Over the years, the property changed hands several times, with each transaction referencing the original deed restriction. The current owners, Hilo Bay Marina, LLC and Keaukaha Ministry LLC, are not religious institutions and sought to have the restriction removed, arguing it was void under Hawai‘i Revised Statutes § 515-6(b), and violated both the Hawai‘i and Federal Establishment Clauses.The Circuit Court of the Third Circuit granted summary judgment for the State of Hawai‘i and its Board of Land and Natural Resources, finding that the deed restriction was a permissible form of early use-zoning, did not violate the cited laws, and was covered by the statutory exemption for religious use. The court also concluded that the restriction did not violate either the Hawai‘i or Federal Establishment Clauses, applying both the Lemon test and the more recent “historical practices and understandings” standard from Kennedy v. Bremerton School District.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai‘i reviewed the case de novo. The court found that the record did not support the lower court’s conclusion that the deed restriction was an early form of use-zoning. It held that the State’s enforcement of the restriction violated the Hawai‘i Establishment Clause, as it required the State to actively police religious use and entangled the government with religious affairs. The court reversed the Circuit Court’s judgment for the State, vacated its ruling on the Federal Establishment Clause, and held that summary judgment should be entered for the plaintiffs. View "Hilo Bay Marina, LLC v. State" on Justia Law

A charter city in California was required by state law to update its housing element—a component of its general plan addressing housing needs—by October 15, 2021. The city submitted a draft housing element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), which found the draft would comply with state law if adopted. However, the city refused to adopt the revised housing element, citing concerns about environmental impacts and the number of affordable housing units required. The city also filed a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Housing Element Law, which was ultimately dismissed for lack of standing.The People of California, represented by the Attorney General and the HCD, filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Orange County Superior Court, later transferred to the San Diego County Superior Court, seeking to compel the city to adopt a compliant housing element. The Kennedy Commission, an affordable housing advocacy group, intervened. The trial court granted the State’s petition for writ of mandate, finding the city had a ministerial duty to adopt a compliant housing element, but the court’s order did not include a 120-day compliance deadline or provisional remedies limiting the city’s permitting and zoning authority, as requested by the State. The court also stayed further proceedings due to pending appeals and unresolved cross-petitions.The California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, reviewed the case. It held that Article 14 of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, which includes the 120-day compliance deadline and provisional remedies, applies to enforcement actions against charter cities. The court directed the trial court to vacate its prior order and issue a new order including the required compliance deadline and provisional remedies, and to lift its stay and expeditiously resolve remaining issues. The court declined to order entry of final judgment while other pleadings remained unresolved. View "Kennedy Commission v. Superior. Ct." on Justia Law

A hotel in the Town of Newburgh, New York, agreed to provide long-term housing to asylum seekers as part of a program initiated by New York City. In response, the Town alleged that the hotel’s actions violated local zoning and occupancy ordinances, which limited hotel stays to transient guests for no more than 30 days. The Town inspected the hotel, found modifications suggesting long-term use, and filed suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Orange County, seeking to enjoin the hotel from housing asylum seekers for extended periods. The state court issued a temporary restraining order, but allowed the asylum seekers already present to remain pending further orders.The hotel removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, arguing that the Town’s enforcement was racially motivated and violated Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thus justifying removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). The district court found that removal was improper because the hotel had not sufficiently pleaded grounds for removal under § 1443(1), and remanded the case to state court.While the hotel’s appeal of the remand order was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the underlying state court action was discontinued with prejudice after the asylum seekers left and the City ended its program. The Second Circuit determined that, because the state court case was permanently terminated, there was no longer a live controversy regarding removal. The court held the appeal was moot and, following standard practice when mootness occurs through no fault of the appellant, vacated the district court’s remand order and dismissed the appeal. View "Town of Newburgh v. Newburgh EOM LLC" on Justia Law

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