Select Page

Land Use
Rutgers University, Newark School of Law
Ball, Carlos A.

Case Organization for Land Use Controls 2009,
Professor Carlos Ball
 
I. Zoning and the Rights of Landowners   4
A. Substantive Due Process: States Police Power to regulate 4
Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. 272 U.S. 365 (1926)à    4
Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928) à    4
Architectural Review: Prior to the City of Ladue 5
STOYANOFF v. BERKELEY 458 S.W.2d 305 (Mo. 1970)à    5
KUVIN v. CITY OF CORAL GABLES 2007 WL 2376654à    5
Anderson v. City of Issaquah 851 p2d 744 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993)à    6
B. Equal Protection Clause: Line Drawing and Class of One Claims 6
Layne v. zoning Board of Adjustment 460 A.2d 1088 (Pa. 193) à    6
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech 528 U.S. 562 (2000)à     6
Flying J v. New Havenà    6
C. The Takings Issue (Confiscatory Zoning Classifications).7
William Michael Treanor, The Original Understanding of the Taking Clause and the Political Process 7
i. Nuisance regulations as non-takings 7
Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623 (1887)à    7
Pennsylvania Coal Co. V. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922)à    8
ii. Ad Hoc Balancing Test8
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York 438 U.S. 104 (1978)à    8
iii. Per Se Takings 9
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 505 US 1003 1992à    10
Tensions Between Penn Central and the Per Se rules of Loretto and Lucas 10
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island 533 US 606 (2001)à    10
Above is Class #1-5 11
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 535 US 302 (2002)à    11
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. 125 .Ct 2074 (2005)à    12
iv. Exactions 12
Nollan v. California Costal Commision 483 US 825 (1987)à    13
Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 US 374 (1994)à    14
ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT v. KOONTZ (Fla. Ct. App. 2009)à    16
Ehrlich v. City og Culver City (Cal 1996) Fees for the Tennis Court caseà    17
v. Ripeness Doctrine 18
Williams County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank 473 US 172 (1985)à    18
Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Townshipà    18
Insomnia Inc. v. Memphis (porn case)à    18
vi. Non Conforming Use and Vested Rights 18
PA NORTHWESTERN DISTRIBUTORS, INC. v. The ZONING HEARING BOARD OF the TOWNSHIP OF MOON 584 A.2d 1372 (Pa. 1991)à    18
Village of Valatie v. Smith 632 N.E. 2d 1264 (N.Y. 1994) (non conforming uses)à    19
Valley View Industrial Park v. City of Redmond (Wash. 1987) (Vested Rights)à    20
Greater Harrodsburg/Mercer County Planning & Zoning Commission v. Romero 250 S.W.3d 355 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008)à    20
***Most Court Recognize Vested Rights only if made in Good Faith Reliance on issuances pf a building permit or other approval*** 20
Equitable estoppel20
Above is Class #5-11 21
D.     Public Use Clause 21
Federal Constitution: Eminent Domain 21
Kelo v. City of New London 125 S.Ct. 2655à    21
Southwestern Illinois development Authority v. National City Environmental, LLC (2002)à    22
State Constitutions 22
COUNTY OF WAYNE v. HATHCOCK 684 N.W.2d 765 (Mich. 2004)à    22
GOLDSTEIN v. NEW YORK STATE URBAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION 879 N.Y.S.2d 524 May 12, 2009 (Dirty Rat/The Nets Stadium Case)à    23
E. Religious Land Uses 23
Free Exercise Clause 24
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)24
WESTCHESTER DAY SCHOOL v. VILLAGE OF MAMARONECK 504 F.3d 338 (2nd Cir. 2007) à    24
WESTGATE TABERNACLE, INC. v. PALM BEACH COUNTY 2009 WL 1393429à    25
LIGHTHOUSE INSTITUTE FOR EVANGELISM, INC., v. CITY OF LONG BRANCH 510 F.3d 253 (3rd Cir. 2007)à    25
Above is Class #11-15 26
F. Free Speech 26
Sexually-Oriented Businesses 26
City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters, Inc. (1986)à    26
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books ,Inc.à     26
Billboards and Signs 27
Metromedia, Inc. City of San Diego 610 p.2d 407 (Cal. 1980) reversed, 453 U.S. 490 (1981)à    27
City of Ladue v. Gilleo 512 U.S. 43 (1994)à    28
STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DeANGELO 963 A.2d 1200 (N.J. 2009)à    29
II. ZONING CHANGES AND THE RIGHTS OF NEIGHBORS   29
Basic set up by the SZEA (Standard Zoning Enabling Act):30
The local legislative body 30
Planning commission 30
Board of adjustment30
A. Actions by Administrative Bodies 30
1. Variances 30
Matthew v. Smith (Mo. 1986)à    30
DRIEHAUS v. WALWORTH COUNTY 767 N.W.2d 343 (Wisc. Ct. App. 2009) à    31
2. Special Exceptions or Special Uses or Conditional Uses 31
Gladden v. District of Columbia Board of zoning Adjustment 659 A.2d 249 (D.C. 1995)à    31
FAIRFAX COUNTY v. SOUTHLAND CORPORATION S.E.2d 718 (Va. 1982)à    32
CROOKED CREEK CONSERVATION and GUN CLUB, INC. v. HAMILTON COUNTY NORTH BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS 677 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)à    32
B. Actions by Legislative Bodies 33
1. Rezoning, Spot Zoning, and Comprehensive Plans 33
Griswold v. City of Homer 925 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1996)à    33
Haines v. City of Phoenix 727 p.2d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App 1986)à    35
2. Contract Zoningà    35
Chrismon v. Guilford Countyà     35
Above is Class #15-20 36
Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners, 595 So. 65 (fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991)à    36
C.     Actions by Neighbors 37
City of Chicago v. Stratton (1896)àlivery stable case 37
Eubankà    38
Thomas Cusack Co. v. City of Chicago (1917)à court uphold a ordince in which owners on the block are denied unless a majority concent to having a billboard. Court states: the property owner “cannot be injured but obviously may be benefited, by this provision, for without it the prohibition of the erection of such billboards is absolute.” 38
Cary v. City of Rapid City (1997)à    38
III. WHAT IS IMPERMISSIBLE DISCRIMINATION IN LAND USE REGULATION?   38
A.     “Unconventional” Households 38
AMES RENTAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION v. CITY OF AMES 736 N.W.2d 255 (Iowa 2007)à    38
B. Racial & Ethnic Minorities 39
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitian Housing Development Corp. (1977)à aka Arlington Heights I 39
CINE SK8, INC. v. TOWN OF HENRIETTA 507 F.3d 778 (2nd Cir. 2007)39
C. Individuals with Disabilities 40
SCHWARZ v. CITY OF TREASURE ISLAND 544 F.3d 1201 (11th Cir. 2008)40
D. Sex Offenders 40
STATE OF IOWA v. WILLARD 756 N.W.2d 207 (Iowa 2008)à     40
MANN v. GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 653 S.E.2d 740 (Ga. 2007)à     41
E. Poor People 41
Southen Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount laurel (456 A.2d 390 (N.J. 1983)à Mt. Laurel II (the fist!)42
IV. The Regional Obligations of Municipalities   42
Obligations to Consider the Negative spillover Effects of Uses Located Near Municipal Borders 43
Borough of Cresskill v. Borough of Dumont 104 A.2d 441 (N.J. 1954)43
City of Del Mar. v. City of San Diego 183 Cal. Rptr. 898 (Ct. App. 1982)44
Beaver Gasoline Co. v. zoning Hearing Board of the Borough of Osborne 285 A.2d 501 (Pa. 1971)44
 
I. Zoning and the Rights of Landowners
 
Land use is always between one of the three: developer, the neighbors, or the general –purpose local government: Governments use four types of tools to regulate: comprehensive plans, Zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, Building and related codes see page 74
A. Substantive Due Process: States Police Power to regulate
Village of Euclid v. Amber Realty Co. 272 U.S. 365 (1926)à
 
All of the course is seemingly based in the implication that the local municipality has the inherent right to govern itself. Euclid set the standard for a municipality to enact and continue Zoning ordinances which are against the flow of citizens.
           
In Euclid the Appellee was a owner of a tract of land within the area containing 68 acres. The ordinance was adopted by the village Council, establishing a comprehensive zoning plan for regulating and restricting the location of trades, industries, and apartments hours, ect. Based on this ordinance the Appellee’s land was significantly burdened by the ultimate change in what could be created

gned for, nor may it be used for, passenger travel. The open space is specifically designed to store and transport things. The ordinances as applied to Kuvin’s open bed pickup truck, therefore, are constitutional.
Anderson v. City of Issaquah 851 p2d 744 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993)à
Anderson challenges the denial of his application for a land use certification, arguing inter alia, that the building deisng requirements contained in Issaquah Municipal Code… are unconstitutionally vague. The Superior Court rejected this constitutional challenge. “We reverse and direct that Anderson’s land use certification be issued.” “[a government agent stated] There is a certain feeling you get when you drive along Gilman Boulevard, and [the appellants building] does not give this same feeling.”
 
“The purpose of the void for vagueness doctrin is to limit arbitrary and discretionary enforcements of the law…” “As stated… we conclude that these code sections ‘do not give effective or meaning ful guidance’ to the applicants, to design professionals or to the public officals of Issaquah who are responsible for enforcing the code.”
 
B. Equal Protection Clause: Line Drawing and Class of One Claims
 
Instances in which the landowner’s arguments are couched mainly in terms of fairness, or, as economist say distributional consideration see Ellickson at 125
 
            Discriminatory Line Drawing
Layne v. zoning Board of Adjustment 460 A.2d 1088 (Pa. 193) à
Plaintiff argued that because rooming houses were allowed within the city he should be allowed to use his home for a boarding house. “The zoning power is one of the tools of government which, in order to be effective, must not be subject to judicial interference unless clearly necessary. For the reasons stated we, do not find it necessary to set aside the determination of the local legislative body in this case.” See Ellickson at 127.
           
            Discrimination against a Particular landowner
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech 528 U.S. 562 (2000)à
 Olech sued the village claiming that the village’s demand of an additional 18-foot easement violated Equal protection. Ruling: “Olech’s complaint can fairly be construed as alleging that the Village intentionally demanded a 33-foot easement as a condition of connecting her property to the municipal water supply where the village required only a 15-foort easement from other similarly situated property owners… The complaint [argues that this was] “irrational and wholly arbitrary…” ‘…these allegations… are sufficient to state a claim for relief under traditional equal protection analysis.”
Flying J v. New Havenà
 
A two-step analysis. First, the district court claimed that in assessing a class of one equal
protection claim at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage, the court should presume the rationality of the law. Wroblewski v. City of Washburn, 965 F.2d 452, 459 (7th Cir.1992). The district court then proceeded to analyze the possible justifications for the ordinance, in particular the need to control the secondary impact of large service stations. The district court concluded that while this