Zoning Rules
What is the rule in Anderson v. City of Issaquah?
A land use ordinance is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide clear standards and allows for arbitrary and discretionary enforcement.
What amendment did the Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. case claim to violate?
The 14th
What is the rule in Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. US?
The taking or use of American Indian land does not require any compensation by the government.
What was the holding of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council?
Judgment reversed. There are two categories of regulatory action as compensable without case-specific inquiry into the public interest advanced in support of the restraint: (1) when the property owner has suffered a physical invasion of his property; and (2) when the regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land.
What was the dissent in Babbitt v. Youpee?
The government has a strong interest in removing legal impediments to the most productive development of real estate. Minimizing the fractionation of Native American lands will lead to the productive development of their property, and the government has a strong interest in this, so Section: 207 is justified. The affected owners should have notice and an opportunity to adjust their affairs in order to protect against loss.
What was the rule in Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC.?
Zoning bylaws will only be overturned if they are arbitrary or unreasonable or substantially unrelated to the public health safety and general welfare of the citizens.
What was the holding in Anderson v. City of Issaquah?
The Supreme Court of the United States (Supreme Court) found the vague code sections which gave no meaningful guidance to the Commission to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had not foreclosed the ability of the city to control designs based on aesthetic values, however, the vague standards which amounted to review by the Commission on an ad hoc basis were a deprivation of due process.
What is the rule in Kelo v. City of New London?
The court had previously held in the Midkiff case that such economic development qualified as a valid public use under both the Federal and State Constitutions. The court has to meet two burdens for eminent domain- (1) that the takings of the particular properties at issue were “reasonably necessary” to achieve the City’s intended public use and (2) that the takings were for “reasonably foreseeable needs.”
What are the facts of Babbitt v. Youpee?
A federal statute attempted to control the fragmenting of Native American land by stating that small parcels of land could not be devised or descend through intestacy, but would instead escheat to the tribe.
What was the dissenting and concurring opinion in Tee-Hit Ton Indians v. US?
The Justices agree with the majority opinion but disagree with the future issue of the Indians having a property right to the land.
What was the rule in State Department Ecology v. Grimes?
A water right is limited to the amount of water necessary for beneficial use, and reductions in claimed water rights based on insufficient evidence do not constitute a taking without just compensation.
Why was the zoning invalid in Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel?
The zoning enactment contradicts the general welfare and is invalid. A municipality “must zone for the welfare of the people and not for the benefit of the local tax rate.” There exists an affirmative duty not to foreclose on classes of people seeking low to moderate-income housing.
What is the rule in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council?
When the state seeks to sustain regulation that deprives a landowner from all economic use, the state may resist compensation only if the logically antecedent inquiry into the nature of the owner’s estate shows that the prescribed use interests were not part of his title to begin with.
What was the holding of Kelo v. City of New London?
The city’s proposed disposition of petitioners’ property qualifies as a “public use” within the meaning of the Takings Clause. Public use in this case was broadly interpreted to mean “public purpose”.
What was the dissent in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City?
The dissent by Justice Rehnquist, the Chief Justice and Justice Stevens states that it would not equate the Landmarks Law with a zoning regulation. It points out that the effect of the Landmarks Law is to place an affirmative duty on the owner of a designated property to maintain the property as a landmark at his own expense.
What is the rule in Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck?
The government may not impose a land use regulation in a manner that substantially burdens religious exercise unless the regulation furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.
What was the holding in Town of Belleville v. Parrillo’s, Inc.?
Nonconforming uses may not be changed except when the change is so negligible or insubstantial that it does not warrant judicial or administrative interference. Converting the restaurant to a nightclub was a substantial, and therefore impermissible, change. The entire character of the business has been altered.
What is the rule in Babbitt v. Youpee?
When the government restricts a person’s ability to direct the descent of his land, the restriction amounts to an impermissible taking in violation of the just compensation clause.
What were the facts of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City?
Penn Central (Appellant) owned the Grand Central Terminal, which was designated by application of New York’s Landmarks Preservation Law to be a landmark. Thereafter, the Appellant entered into a renewable 50-year lease with UGP Properties, Ltd., a United Kingdom company, under which the UGP agreed to construct a multistory office building on top of the terminal. The plans for the new office building were submitted to the Commission for approval, which was denied.
What was the dissent in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council?
The first dissent does not like the threshold question of “has the property lost all its economic value,” and states that the trial court’s finding of total economic loss was erroneous. The second dissent does not like the new test either, because the whole takings jurisprudence has been based on an ad hoc factual inquiry.
What is the rule in Krummenacher v. Minnetonka?
A municipality does not have the authority to grant a variance unless the applicant can show that the property cannot be put to a reasonable use without the variance, as required by the "undue hardship" standard under Minnesota law.
What are the facts of Westchester Day School v. Village of Mamaroneck?
The Westchester Day School, an Orthodox Jewish co-educational institution, sought to expand its facilities in Mamaroneck, New York, but was denied a special permit by the Village of Mamaroneck's zoning board. The school argued that the denial violated the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), as it substantially burdened their religious exercise without a compelling governmental interest. The district court favored the school, ordering the village to issue the permit. The Village appealed this decision, and the case was brought before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal focused on whether the zoning board's actions constituted a substantial burden on the school's religious exercise under RLUIPA and whether a compelling governmental interest justified such a burden. The court also addressed issues related to the constitutionality of RLUIPA, the right to a jury trial, and the appropriateness of the district court's relief under the All Writs Act.
What is the rule in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City?
In deciding whether a particular government action has effected a taking, this Court focuses both on the character of the action and the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the parcel as a whole.
What was the holding in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City?
The Court concluded that the interference with Appellants’ property was not such that the interference amounted to a taking requiring just compensation. The Court also held that the impact of the regulation on Appellants’ parcel was insufficient to require the government to institute eminent domain proceedings.
What was the dissent in Durand v. IDC Bellingham, LLC.?
The only thing that has changed between the two town meeting votes was the money. It was, therefore, a sale for police power.