Click here to be redirected to the APA Mobile Site optimized for mobile devices.
Planning & Environmental Law Volume 62 • 2010 Judicial Decisions: Subject IndexThe case abstracts are listed by common subject names. Some cases may be found in multiple subject categories. A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | Y | Z AACCESSORY USES Barn and equestrian center for noncommercial use is an accessory use to residence (Wyo. 2009) 62 PEL 1 Indoor shooting range qualifies as a "recreation facility," a conditional use in rural agricultural district, and may have accessory uses including retail sales and classrooms (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 48 Agricultural buildings are allowed on lot where agriculture is permitted; the presence of a residence on the lot does not require that the buildings qualify as residential accessory uses (Mich. App. 2009) 62 PEL 118 Storage of tractor trailer trucks is not accessory to residential use and is not part of normal agricultural operation (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 279 Parking deck is not an accessory "use" but a structure requiring amendment of hotel's conditional use permit (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 388 ADULT USES Court applies intermediate scrutiny and holds that city did not justify restrictions on hours of operation for adult uses not including live shows or video booths (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 2 Regulation requiring dispersal of adult uses not offering on-site entertainment must be justified by reference to impact of that type of business (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 3 Whether special use ordinance constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on adult uses depends on extent to which it applies to such uses (U.S. Dist., N.D. Ill. 2009) 62 PEL 42 Developer of adult use has no vested right in erroneously issued permits (R.I. 2009) 62 PEL 73 Definition of adult-oriented store as having "a substantial or significant portion of its stock" in adult products is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to store selling 8,242 adult items (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 119 Statute prohibiting sale of sexual aid devices is constitutional (Ala. 2010) 62 PEL 199 County has a reasonable basis for ordinance prohibiting sale or consumption of alcohol on adult entertainment premises (U.S. App., 11th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 200 Adequacy of alternative locations must be evaluated at the time of challenge to adult use ordinance (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 201 Assertion that city employees manipulated application filing dates for adult use and church must be resolved before determination of whether sensitive use ordinance applies (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 322 Transmission of images of sexual conduct for sale on the Internet constitutes operation of a business (U.S. App., 11th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 358 Law prohibiting sale of distilled alcoholic beverages in adult entertainment establishments, while allowing sale of beer and wine, is valid (U.S. App., 4th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 399 AESTHETICS Denial of permits for telecommunications facilities in public rights-of-way, based on aesthetics, does not violate Telecommunications Act (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 35 AGRICULTURE Restriction on release from agricultural easement, prohibiting transfer of residential use of two acres for five years, is valid (Md. 2009) 62 PEL 78 Overlay district permitting recreational trail through orchard is not a rezoning subject to review by Growth Management Hearings Board and is not inconsistent with protection of agriculture (Wash. App. 2009) 62 PEL 79 Planned unit development designation may not be used to increase density in agricultural preservation area (S.C. 2009) 62 PEL 102 Ordinance intended to conform to Right to Farm Act does not violate rights of noncommercial farmer (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 162 Approval of 8,000-animal feedlot within one mile of site for which a residential building permit had issued is not arbitrary (N.D. 2010) 62 PEL 163 After finding open agricultural use with a single-family dwelling occupied by the owner, county lacks discretion to find that principal use is not agricultural (Colo. App. 2010) 62 PEL 202 Nursery where container plants are maintained for sale does not qualify for agricultural exemption from zoning ordinance (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 203 Storage of tractor trailer trucks is not accessory to residential use and is not part of normal agricultural operation (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 279 Recently partitioned grazing land continues to be agricultural land as part of a "farm unit" although the land is not independently suitable for farming (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 280 Court must consider cost of removing trees in determining whether land is primary agricultural soil, so that development requires off-site mitigation (Vt. 2010) 62 PEL 281 Trial court lacks jurisdiction over claims of intentional nuisance in connection with farming operations (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 359 AIRPORT/AIR RIGHTS Determination that conditional use permit will not be renewed is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review (Cal. 2009) 62 PEL 80 State Aeronautics Act does not preclude initiative enactment of zoning amendments permitting mixed use development near airport (Cal. App. 2010 2009) 62 PEL 292 Owners of land subject to airport safety zone restrictions suffer a burden and loss of value not shared by others, and are entitled to compensation for regulatory taking (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 294 ANNEXATION Neighbors have standing to challenge annexation based on allegations of reasonably ascertainable future harm (Nev. 2009) 62 PEL 4 Town's failure to comply with statutory procedures for disapproving annexation does not amount to deemed approval of annexation (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 5 Disconnection is not barred by village's retention of two small barrier parcels, if village cannot demonstrate any impairment that will result from disconnection (Ill. App 2009) 62 PEL 43 Owner is entitled to disconnect from village, but open space covenant imposed in exchange for special zoning remains valid (Ill. App. 2009) 62 PEL 44 Lessees do not have standing under the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act; landowner's claims of tortuous interference with contract against city fall within immunity exception (Tex. App. 2009) 62 PEL 159 Failure to comply with statutory notice requirements on second attempt at annexation is inadvertent and not a basis for invalidating annexation (Colo. App. 2010) 62 PEL 317 Annexation, void for leaving an unincorporated island, is not revived by subsequent annexation of the island (Ga. App. 2010) 62 PEL 360 Petition for detachment of farmland requires analysis of benefits provided by city compared to tax burden (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 361 Owners of land outside city lack common-law standing to challenge annexation for construction of ethanol plant (Neb. 2010) 62 PEL 433 APPEALS AND APPEAL PROCEDURES Approval for removal of earth material without a special permit may not be collaterally attacked by means of cease-and-desist order (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 120 Objector cannot attack reduction in parking as part of conditional use approval in subsequent proceedings concerning tax increment financing (N.D. 2010) 62 PEL 121 Ordinance allowing issuance of certificate of nonconformance without notice is valid because it allows objectors to appeal within 30 days of obtaining knowledge (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 122 Decision revoking permit also revoked two-year limit on that permit, so appeal of revocation was not moot after two years (Wash. 2010) 62 PEL 123 Planning board's continuing jurisdiction over conditions of approval does not exempt developer from 30-day appeals period (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 164 Service by court clerk is not the equivalent of filing notice of appeal with the agency from which appeal is taken and does not establish jurisdiction (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 165 On review of zoning officer's determination that rehabilitation center constitutes a hospital, zoning hearing board lacks authority to consider whether use would constitute a prison (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 204 Zoning board of appeals has jurisdiction to determine whether redesigned plans conform to stipulated judgment (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 282 Clerk of department of planning and zoning files development order and triggers 30-day appeals period (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 283 Denials of sewer facilities priority reclassification are legislative, not subject to review by the board of appeals or to administrative mandamus (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 362 Zoning administrator's letter, indicating that certificate of occupancy would be issued upon completion of house, constitutes a decision triggering the appeals period (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 400 ATTORNEY FEES Landlord is not entitled to attorney fees as prevailing party in rent control litigation against city (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 166 Creation of slope within setback of sandpit constitutes prohibited excavation (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 220 Award of attorney fees for defending appeal of judgment declaring comprehensive plan unconstitutional is proper (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 284 AUTOMATIC GRANT/DENIAL Town's failure to comply with statutory procedures for disapproving annexation does not amount to deemed approval of annexation (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 5 Court may not order certification of environmental impact report based on delays (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 90 Failure to state reasons for denial of rezoning does not result in automatic approval (Minn. 2010) 62 PEL 363 BBUILDING CODES Owner who commenced work without a permit is not denied due process by official's failure to advise him of the need for blueprints or of the appeals process (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 124 Contract requiring seller to provide evidence that there are no "open code violations cases" is ambiguous (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 240 BUILDING PERMITS Town lacks authority to deny building permit for pier approved by Department of Natural Resources (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 346 Mistaken issuance of building permit for a duplex is a discretionary function, for which city is not liable (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 417 CCIVIL RIGHTS Sex offender residency restrictions of Kentucky's "Megan's Law" are excessive and may not be applied to offenders who committed offenses prior to its enactment (Ky. 2009) 62 PEL 6 Trial court properly refused to dismiss equal protection and First Amendment claims alleging discriminatory code enforcement (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 7 Condominium owners may allege Fair Housing Act violations based on association's interpretation of rules with respect to hallway display of religious symbols (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 45 Developer fails to establish discriminatory impact, in violation of Fair Housing Act, resulting from denial of permit for apartment development (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 46 Developer must demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements for senior housing to obtain site plan approval (N.H. 2009) 62 PEL 125 Denial of wildlife permit does not violate due process rights of wildlife rehabilitator who previously refused to cooperate with department (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 241 Owner sufficiently alleges certain claims with respect to delay of conditional use permit for a radio tower (U.S. Dist., S.D. Ohio 2010) 62 PEL 242 Delays in permit renewals for adult use do not violate constitutional protections (U.S. App., 10th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 243 Developer, denied approval for multifamily development, does not establish that denial or prohibition on multifamily housing is unconstitutional or violates Fair Housing Act (U.S. App., 6th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 318 Inadequate sidewalks, curbs, and parking lots are not a "service, program, or activity" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, but may effectively deny access to covered services (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 418 COASTAL AND WETLAND REGULATION Drain and fill activities exceed farming exemption from wetlands permit requirement and are subject to cease-and-desist order (Conn App. 2009) 62 PEL 8 Evidence does not support determination that proposed joint-use pier is inconsistent with purposes of Shoreline Management Act (Wash. App. 2009) 62 PEL 9 Decisions by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Florida Department of Environmental Protection not to exercise jurisdiction over isolated wetlands does not exempt development from county regulations (Fla. App. 2009) 62 PEL 126 Purchasers have constructive notice of conservation easement prohibiting encroachment into wetlands transition area (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 127 Trial court is within its discretion to reject proposal to create cranberry bog as restoration of wetlands destroyed by unpermitted activities (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 167 City lacks authority to use designation of area as part of the federal Coastal Barrier Resources System as criterion for inclusion in resources protection area under state Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act (Va. 2010) 62 PEL 168 Town's stream buffer requirements are not preempted by less stringent state law (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 205 Violation of riparian buffer is an encumbrance subject to deed warranties, and actionable despite purchaser's actual knowledge (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 319 Restoration of beaches, so that private land no longer touches the water, does not constitute a taking (U.S. 2010) 62 PEL 334 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designation of more than 850,000 acres as critical habitat for vernal pool species is upheld (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 401 Department of Ecology has authority to order compliance and impose a penalty on unpermitted filling of wetlands (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 402 COMPREHENSIVE PLANS Consistency with comprehensive plan designation for future residential use does not entitle developer to rezoning of agricultural land (Iowa App. 2009) 62 PEL 30 Township may rely on county comprehensive plan rather than prepare its own for purposes of enacting zoning measure (Ohio 2009) 62 PEL 47 Award of attorney fees for defending appeal of judgment declaring comprehensive plan unconstitutional is proper (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 284 Citizen group lacks standing to challenge comprehensive plan based on potential general harm (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 309 Growth Management Board may not employ "bright-line rules" concerning density in validating county comprehensive plan (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 374 CONDITIONAL USES Denial of permit for lighted palm trees outside casino is reasonable and within the planning board's jurisdiction (Mont. 2009) 62 PEL 10 Indoor shooting range qualifies as a "recreation facility," a conditional use in rural agricultural district, and may have accessory uses including retail sales and classrooms (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 48 Determination that conditional use permit will not be renewed is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review (Cal. 2009) 62 PEL 80 City cannot determine that deli is a permitted use and, at the same time, impose conditions (Miss. App. 2009) 62 PEL 81 Board does not lose authority to impose additional conditions after finding application complies with all requirements of land use code (N.C. App. 2009) 62 PEL 82 Substantial evidence supports decision to grant conditional use permit for nonprofit motor cross bike instruction in domestic-agricultural zone (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 128 Minutes of meeting are adequate "writing" to justify denial of conditional use permit for telecommunications tower (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 194 Conditions imposed on concrete plant requiring off-site improvements and limiting operations are unreasonable (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 206 Gravel pit does not qualify as a special use for "commercial businesses supplying products and services for agricultural and forestry activities" (Idaho 2010) 62 PEL 209 Request for variance from prohibition on active mining within 500 feet of any residential district or structure is a request for use variance (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 221 Owner sufficiently alleges certain claims with respect to delay of conditional use permit for a radio tower (U.S. Dist., S.D. Ohio 2010) 62 PEL 242 Developer is not entitled to the requested density, inconsistent with average lot sizes in area, based on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment score and successful compatibility meeting (W.V. 2010) 62 PEL 244 Enactment of exception to billboard moratorium, allowing billboards on public arenas as a conditional use, and immediate approval of permits for city-owned arena, is valid (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 305 Grant of conditional use permit for 13-story building is supported by substantial evidence and does not constitute spot zoning (Miss. 2010) 62 PEL 320 Parking deck is not an accessory "use" but a structure requiring amendment of hotel's conditional use permit (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 388 CONDITIONAL ZONING Developer acquires no vested right in conditional use application that does not comply with applicable regulations (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 438 CONDOMINIUMS AND COOPS Condominium developments in areas without relevant zoning regulations are subject to review under Subdivision Act (Mont. 2009) 62 PEL 115 Declaration provision allowing developer to amend percentage of ownership interests is not altered by deeds limiting that power to 10 years (Vt. 2010) 62 PEL 364 CONSENT PROVISIONS Approval of new planned unit developments carved out of existing one does not amount to a taking or spot zoning (Tex. App. 2010) 62 PEL 144 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — DUE PROCESS Statutory time limit on challenges to enactment of ordinances is valid (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 11 Code enforcement ordinance providing for appeal only with respect to the initial notice of violation and first penalty and not for any penalties assessed thereafter violates due process (Wash. 2009) 62 PEL 12 Ordinance prohibiting sale of a house without an inspection to determine compliance with the building code does not violate due process protections (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 83 Owner who commenced work without a permit is not denied due process by official's failure to advise him of the need for blueprints or of the appeals process (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 124 Code requirement that development "will not impair the future development of a comprehensive neighborhood circulation system" does not provide clear, objective standard (Or. App. 2009) 62 PEL 129 Nuisance law, aimed at unruly student gatherings, is constitutional (U.S. Dist., D.R.I. 2010) 62 PEL 143 Statute prohibiting sale of sexual aid devices is constitutional (Ala. 2010) 62 PEL 199 Denial of wildlife permit does not violate due process rights of wildlife rehabilitator who previously refused to cooperate with department (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 241 Ordinance without specific standards for rejecting subdivision based on concerns about flooding and slopes is impermissibly vague (Ala. App. 2010) 62 PEL 245 City's extraterritorial enforcement of nuisance laws and warrantless inspection of property do not violate due process (U.S. App., 8th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 285 Neighboring owners, participants in hearing on planned unit development amendment, are not entitled to cross-examine developer's witnesses (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 365 Interpretation of planned unit development standards to prohibit proposed Wal-Mart constitutes amendment without notice and hearing, violating constitutional rights of developer (U.S. App., 6th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 366 Board's refusal to allow witness testimony violates due process rights of individual appealing termination of contract with borough (Alaska 2010) 62 PEL 403 Official's order that temporary asphalt driveway be removed does not violate due process rights of owners (U.S. App., 6th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 404 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — EQUAL PROTECTION Village's decision not to extend water system to subdivision is rational and does not violate equal protection requirements (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 84 Auto salvage shop owner fails to establish equal protection violations in city's enforcement actions (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 169 Denial of variance for religious primary school in district permitting preschools does not violate equal protection (Mich. 2010) 62 PEL 321 "Class of one" equal protection claim fails for lack of specific facts regarding similarly situated applicants (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 367 Practice of billing only those with city water meters for stormwater management utility charges may violate equal protection rights (Ariz. App. 2010) 62 PEL 405 CONSTITUTIONAL LAW — FIRST AMENDMENT Court applies intermediate scrutiny and holds that city did not justify restrictions on hours of operation for adult uses not including live shows or video booths (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 2 Regulation requiring dispersal of adult uses not offering on-site entertainment must be justified by reference to impact of that type of business (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 3 Ordinance prohibiting leafleting unoccupied vehicles is not justified by city's assertions concerning litter and protecting the rights of car owners who do not want leaflets (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 13 Whether special use ordinance constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on adult uses depends on extent to which it applies to such uses (U.S. Dist., N.D. Ill. 2009) 62 PEL 42 Colorado smoking ban, including theatrical smoking, does not violate First Amendment (Colo. 2009) 62 PEL 85 Officials' refusal to meet privately with developer who did not have pending business with the town, but had lawsuit pending against the town, is not unconstitutional (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 130 Anti-SLAPP law is not a basis for dismissal of defamation claims against reporter who wrote about opposition to a developer (Mass 2010) 62 PEL 170 City's ordinance and enforcement are constitutional even if underinclusive to serve goals relating to aesthetics and traffic safety (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 191 Adequacy of alternative locations must be evaluated at the time of challenge to adult use ordinance (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 201 California upholds ban on solicitation and receipt of funds at Los Angeles International Airport (Cal. 2010) 62 PEL 207 First Amendment does not compel a "government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society" (U.S. 2010) 62 PEL 246 Neighbor who initiated untimely appeal of nonconforming use status is entitled to anti-SLAPP immunity based on his subjective motive (R.I. 2010) 62 PEL 247 Exceptions to bans on certain signs do not undermine city's asserted interests; bans are valid despite exceptions (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 286 Decision to hold public school graduation at church, despite availability of comparable public facilities, constitutes impermissible endorsement of religion (U.S. Dist., D. Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 287 Assertion that city employees manipulated application filing dates for adult use and church must be resolved before determination of whether sensitive use ordinance applies (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 322 Political message mural is a sign and regulations are constitutional (U.S. Dist., E.D. Mo. 2010) 62 PEL 323 Prohibition of painted wrecked car planter as a junked vehicle does not violate First Amendment (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 324 Prohibition on nonprofit's distribution of message T-shirts outside zoo is not narrowly tailored to serve legitimate governmental interest (U.S. Dist., W.D. Wash. 2010) 62 PEL 325 Ordinance requiring permit for large group feeding events is constitutional (U.S. App., 11th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 368 COVENANTS Owner is entitled to disconnect from village, but open space covenant imposed in exchange for special zoning remains valid (Ill. App. 2009) 62 PEL 44 Property is not subject to covenant prohibiting signs that appear in common owner's deed to turnpike authority but not in chain of title to property at issue (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 248 Authority to impose special assessments for "unusual conditions" includes paving roads (Wyo. 2010) 62 PEL 249 Covenant limiting lots to residential use prohibits use for facilities to benefit residences on adjoining lot (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 406 DDAMAGE Federal court remands award of damages to owners around Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant (U.S. App., 10th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 407 DEDICATIONS AND FEES San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's air pollution control rules and fees are valid (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 24 County lacks statutory authority to enact adequate public facilities ordinance for schools (N.C. App. 2009) 62 PEL 50 Impact fees bear a reasonable relationship to the burden imposed by development despite city's failure to offset future tax revenues generated by development in calculating the fees (Ariz. App. 2009) 62 PEL 86 Colorado Regulatory Impairment of Property Rights Act does not apply to denial of exemption from uniform drainage fee imposed on broad class of owners (Colo. 2009) 62 PEL 87 Having obtained preliminary plat approval, developer adequately states constitutional claims against city based on its changes in position and delays (U.S. Dist., D. Or. 2010) 62 PEL 171 Inspection fee remanded for determination of how city calculated the maximum fee (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 172 Shoreline master program setbacks and buildable area limitations do not constitute indirect charges on development, imposed by municipality in violation of statute (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 288 Impact fees for intersection improvement may not be spent on improvements not related to subdivision development (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 326 Challenge to impact fee requires exhaustion of administrative remedies (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 327 Impact fees adequately identify public facilities and have a reasonable relationship to burden imposed by development (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 369 Hamilton Township's enactment of impact fees does not violate statutory authority (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 370 Practice of billing only those with city water meters for stormwater management utility charges may violate equal protection rights (Ariz. App. 2010) 62 PEL 405 Imposing fee for new school facilities as condition of approval is ultra vires (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 408 Proper remedy for failure to make appropriate findings in imposing recreation fee is remand to planning board (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 414 DEFINITIONS Definition of adult-oriented store as having "a substantial or significant portion of its stock" in adult products is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to store selling 8,242 adult items (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 119 Area planning commission is a political subdivision of Kentucky and has governmental immunity from tort claims (Ky. App. 2010) 62 PEL 131 "Floor area" refers to the area on which a person can stand, not the footprint of the entire structure (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 132 Ordinance's definition of "public sidewalk" satisfies due process requirements of fair warning and does not constitute an unlawful taking by regulation (Ga. 2010) 62 PEL 208 Gravel pit does not qualify as a special use for "commercial businesses supplying products and services for agricultural and forestry activities" (Idaho 2010) 62 PEL 209 Short-term rentals of lakefront house are not commercial use in violation of residential zoning classification (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 210 Terms "minimum lot size" and "land area per dwelling unit" have different meanings (Me. 2010) 62 PEL 211 Automobile transportation business is not accessory to residential use or a customary home occupation (N.Y. 2010) 62 PEL 250 Group of seven college students is not a "functional and factual family equivalent" (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2010) 62 PEL 251 Proposed wellness center is properly rejected as more like a prohibited "spa" than a permitted "medical center" (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 289 California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemption for "infill" applies only to areas within city limits, not to other urbanized areas (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 329 Definition of single-family use as four or more persons "living together as a traditional family or the functional equivalent of a traditional family" is not impermissibly vague (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 409 EEASEMENTS Restriction on release from agricultural easement, prohibiting transfer of residential use of two acres for five years, is valid (Md. 2009) 62 PEL 78 Public easement over Hawk Springs reservoir property survives district's contract to sell land (Wyo. 2009) 62 PEL 88 Landlocked owners established prescriptive easement over state land, but are not entitled to place wooden pallets in wetlands without permit (Mich. App. 2010) 62 PEL 264 Abutting owners acquire prescriptive easement to use artificially created reservoir for recreation (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 290 Violation of riparian buffer is an encumbrance subject to deed warranties, and actionable despite purchaser's actual knowledge (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 319 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Statute authorizing creation of self-help business improvement districts is valid (Ala. 2009) 62 PEL 49 EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS County lacks statutory authority to enact adequate public facilities ordinance for schools (N.C. App. 2009) 62 PEL 50 Denial of variance for religious primary school in district permitting preschools does not violate equal protection (Mich. 2010) 62 PEL 321 Imposing fee for new school facilities as condition of approval is ultra vires (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 408 EMINENT DOMAIN County has authority to condemn land within city for expansion of jail without consent of city (Ga. App. 2009) 62 PEL 51 Eminent Domain Procedure Law provides for reimbursement of fees and costs in successful challenge of proposed condemnation (N.Y. 2009) 62 PEL 52 Finding of blight for redevelopment project to expand Columbia University campus is unconstitutional (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 53 New York's highest court upholds condemnations for Brooklyn Atlantic Terminal Urban Renewal Area (N.Y. 2009) 62 PEL 54 Taking of land proposed for affordable housing is in bad faith, and owner is entitled to just compensation and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 173 Requirement that strip be dedicated for road widening as part of development approval is a factor in its valuation in condemnation proceedings (Colo. 2010) 62 PEL 212 Condemnation of construction easements under Seawall Act is constitutional and does not conflict with Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Miss. 2010) 62 PEL 328 New York's highest court upholds findings in support of condemnation for expansion of Columbia University in West Harlem (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 349 ENERGY Ordinance prohibiting commercial wind farms throughout county, while allowing small wind energy operations, is valid (Kan. 2009) 62 PEL 55 Zoning amendment to permit wind energy facility is valid and applicant submitted adequate information for issuance of zoning permit (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 89 ENFORCEMENT Trial court properly refused to dismiss equal protection and First Amendment claims alleging discriminatory code enforcement (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 7 Drain and fill activities exceed farming exemption from wetlands permit requirement and are subject to cease-and-desist order (Conn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 8 Approval of permitted use may not be denied on the basis of owner's past conduct, which was never the subject of enforcement action (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 161 Auto salvage shop owner fails to establish equal protection violations in city's enforcement actions (United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit 2010) 62 PEL 169 City's ordinance and enforcement are constitutional even if underinclusive to serve goals relating to aesthetics and traffic safety (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 191 Creation of slope within setback of sandpit constitutes prohibited excavation (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 220 Township's enforcement of zoning ordinance against violations visible from two highways, before pursuing less-visible violations, is not unreasonable (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 252 City's extraterritorial enforcement of nuisance laws and warrantless inspection of property do not violate due process (U.S. App., 8th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 285 Temporary restraining order prohibiting construction, excavation, and deposit of materials is not ambiguous (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 291 Enforcement of zoning is discretionary, not subject to mandamus (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 371 Amendment to Critical Area Act, requiring mitigation and abatement of violations prior to receipt of a variance, is intended to apply prospectively (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 372 Official's order that temporary asphalt driveway be removed does not violate due process rights of owners (U.S. App., 6th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 404 ENVIRONMENT States and land trusts may pursue federal common-law public nuisance claims against fossil-fuel electric power plants based on their contributions to global warming (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 14 San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's air pollution control rules and fees are valid (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 24 Environmental group is not entitled to mandamus to require promulgation of a rule regulating carbon dioxide emissions (Mich. App. 2010) 62 PEL 174 Wildlife plan that fails to identify whether off-site mitigation would be restoration of public land or funding of mitigation elsewhere does not comply with ordinance requiring "no net loss" (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 175 Resource Management Plan Amendment for Tongass National Forest adequately addresses market demand for timber (U.S. Dist., D.C. 2010) 62 PEL 177 Tree protection ordinance applies to parcel larger than 10 acres, regardless of whether owner has submitted a development plan (Mich. App. 2010) 62 PEL 213 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designation of more than 850,000 acres as critical habitat for vernal pool species is upheld (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 401 Department of Ecology has authority to order compliance and impose a penalty on unpermitted filling of wetlands (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 402 Federal court remands award of damages to owners around Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant (U.S. App., 10th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 407 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS Environmental impact statement for landfill near Joshua Tree National Park is deficient in not considering goals and alternatives beyond those of the developer (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 56 City took required "hard look" at environmental issues in approving Saratoga Springs indoor recreation facility (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 57 Determination that conditional use permit will not be renewed is not subject to California Environmental Quality Act review (Cal. 2009) 62 PEL 80 Court may not order certification of environmental impact report based on delays (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 90 Ordinance prohibiting retailers from supplying customers with plastic bags requires preparation of environmental impact report (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 133 Statutory provision that request for California Environmental Quality Act hearing be made within 90 days of filing requires a written request and cannot be waived by stipulation (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 134 Limitation period for challenging certification under Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act runs from issuance of first permit, regardless of notice or publication (Mass. 2010) 62 PEL 135 Approval of municipal services agreement for casino proposed for tribal land adjacent to city is not a "project" requiring review under California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 176 Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement is required for resort expansion project first approved in 1985 (Haw. 2010) 62 PEL 253 California Environmental Quality Act categorical exemption for "infill" applies only to areas within city limits, not to other urbanized areas (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 329 Strategies for reducing logging in Blanchard Forest without total elimination of harvest do not require preparation of environmental impact statement (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 330 Supplemental environmental impact report to consider impact on climate change is not required where there have been no substantial changes in project and agency's discretion is limited to aesthetics (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 373 Court upholds approval of construction projects for University of California at Berkeley against California Environmental Quality Act and Earthquake Fault Zoning Act challenges (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 410 ESTOPPEL Denial of permit for 18-dog kennel on half-acre residential lot is supported by substantial evidence (Alaska 2009) 62 PEL 20 Homestead Housing Preservation Act prohibits transfer of large residential building to a for-profit entity for rehabilitation (D.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 153 EXCLUSIONARY PRACTICE Denial of variance for telecommunications tower does not violate Telecommunications Act or amount to exclusionary zoning (U.S. Dist. E.D. Pa. 2009) 62 PEL 71 FFLOODPLAIN ZONING City is not liable to owners of homes built in floodplain (Neb. 2010) 62 PEL 300 FOREST LANDS Resource Management Plan Amendment for Tongass National Forest adequately addresses market demand for timber (U.S. Dist., D.C. 2010) 62 PEL 177 GGASOLINE STATIONS Owner's failure to build planned gasoline station before rezoning prohibited the use does not constitute a condition peculiar to the property and justify a variance (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 331 GROWTH MANAGEMENT County's failure to amend its plan to conform to Growth Management Act amendments is subject to challenge, but may not be evaluated by "bright- line rule" (Wash. 2009) 62 PEL 91 Board must address numeric growth objective in general plan, incorporated into master plan, in approving subdivision (Md. 2009) 62 PEL 114 City's immunity for performance of governmental functions does not extend to constitutional or breach of contract claims (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 187 City may not violate obligation under state allocation of regional housing need based on housing cap enacted by initiative (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2010) 62 PEL 214 Growth Management Board may not employ "bright-line rules" concerning density in validating county comprehensive plan (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 374 HHIGHWAYS AND STREETS Absent proof of intent to dedicate for public use for at least 20 years, road in existence since 1897 remains private (Ind. App. 2009) 62 PEL 113 Town lacks authority to close road at town line, blocking sole access to subdivision approved by adjoining municipality over town's protests (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 273 Notice of amendment of plan with vacation of easements under Subdivision Map Act is an adequate alternative to process described in Streets and Highway Code (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 310 Connection of new 1,100-foot dead-end road to existing loop road violates prohibition on dead-end streets longer than 1,200 feet (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 356 Moratorium on work in rights-of-way during road improvement project does not constitute a taking with respect to business relocating as a result of the project (Kan. 2010) 62 PEL 379 HISTORIC PRESERVATION Denial of approval to develop three contemporary houses on site of historic home is reasonable (Wash. App. 2009) 62 PEL 92 Approval of parking lot on historic grounds is supported by evidence of no feasible, prudent alternatives and that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm (Kan. App. 2010) 62 PEL 136 Historic Preservation Commission must review proposed demolition of property listed in national or state register of historic places, regardless of whether property has been designated by local ordinance (S.D. 2010) 62 PEL 137 Historic preservation ordinance, referring to an "area" rather than structures, is valid (Va. 2010) 62 PEL 332 Whether expansion of gaming resort will "encroach upon, damage, or destroy any historic property" must be determined under ordinance standards (S.D. 2010) 62 PEL 375 Transfer of development rights ordinance, intended to protect historic resources and allowing transfer of rights not possessed by sending site, violates statutory scheme (Idaho 2010) 62 PEL 377 HOME OCCUPATIONS Automobile transportation business is not accessory to residential use or a customary home occupation (N.Y. 2010) 62 PEL 250 Zoning board does not have authority to waive conditions for special use as a home business in a residential zone (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 271 Transmission of images of sexual conduct for sale on the Internet constitutes operation of a business (U.S. App., 11th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 358 HOUSING Condominium owners may allege Fair Housing Act violations based on association's interpretation of rules with respect to hallway display of religious symbols (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 45 Developer fails to establish discriminatory impact, in violation of Fair Housing Act, resulting from denial of permit for apartment development (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 46 Award of density bonus units and variances is supported by substantial evidence that approvals were necessary to allow construction of low-income residential units in mixed use development (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 58 City's findings are inadequate to support extension of interim ordinance restricting development of multifamily housing (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 60 Evidence that owner has people living with her to help pay bills is insufficient to show violation of single-family residence restrictions (N.J. App. 2009) 62 PEL 93 City's denial of permit for single-room-occupancy rentals in community center violates Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 107 Developer must demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements for senior housing to obtain site plan approval (N.H. 2009) 62 PEL 125 Taking of land proposed for affordable housing is in bad faith, and owner is entitled to just compensation and damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 173 City may not violate obligation under state allocation of regional housing need based on housing cap enacted by initiative (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2010) 62 PEL 214 Argument that issuance of comprehensive permit will result in "unreasonable overage" of affordable housing rejected because town did not show that concerns about traffic outweighed housing need (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 215 Redevelopment agency's relocation of school district offices to obtain land for affordable housing complies with Community Redevelopment Law (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 265 Challenges to city's agreement to allow temporary homeless encampment in residential area are barred by failure to challenge the agreement under Land Use Petition Act (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 299 Developer, denied approval for multifamily development, does not establish that denial or prohibition on multifamily housing is unconstitutional or violates Fair Housing Act (U.S. App., 6th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 318 Small city that has identified single-family housing as "needed" is required to review applications under statutory "clear and objective" standards (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 376 Zoning board lacks authority to impose certain conditions on comprehensive permit for affordable housing, and conditions are subject to review by state Housing Appeals Committee (Mass. 2010) 62 PEL 411 Approval of planned unit development and concept plan for 743-unit Habitat for Humanity development affirmed (Tenn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 412 IIMMUNITY Area planning commission is a political subdivision of Kentucky and has governmental immunity from tort claims (Ky. App. 2010) 62 PEL 131 Lessees do not have standing under the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act; landowner's claims of tortuous interference with contract against city fall within immunity exception (Tex. App. 2009) 62 PEL 159 City's immunity for performance of governmental functions does not extend to constitutional or breach of contract claims (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 187 State and county are not immune from liability for flooding caused by interference with natural watercourse (Wash. 2010) 62 PEL 413 INCENTIVES Transfer of development rights ordinance, intended to protect historic resources and allowing transfer of rights not possessed by sending site, violates statutory scheme (Idaho 2010) 62 PEL 377 INITIATIVES AND REFERENDA Initiative calling for automatic expiration of all land use ordinances is properly rejected as not enforceable (Alaska 2009) 62 PEL 15 Adoption of a new zoning classification is legislative and subject to referendum (Utah 2010) 62 PEL 178 Sale of water utility, pursuant to Municipal Utilities Law, is subject to referendum under the Faulkner Act (N.J. 2010) 62 PEL 254 State Aeronautics Act does not preclude initiative enactment of zoning amendments permitting mixed use development near airport (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 292 INJUNCTIONS Injunction prohibiting operation of medical marijuana dispensary based on city's refusal to permit the use is valid (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 23 Injunction upheld because church is unlikely to succeed on its RLUIPA "equal terms" challenge (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 28 Owner's failure to apply for certificate of nonconforming use as required by ordinance precludes challenge to injunction (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 389 Exclusion of churches from commercial district does not violate Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act because secular assembly uses are treated similarly (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 391 INTERGOVERNMENTAL CONFLICT County has standing to challenge issuance of radioactive waste permit by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment if county does not issue permit (Colo. 2009) 62 PEL 16 County's role administering shoreland management regulations does not preclude township administration of state building code in shoreland areas (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 378 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION Town's agreement to cooperate with solid waste district is not an impermissible delegation of police power (Vt. 2009) 62 PEL 59 INTERIM ZONING Enactment of interim zoning ordinance requires only notice and a hearing, not additional procedures mandated for enactment of permanent zoning (Mont. 2009) 62 PEL 17 City's findings are inadequate to support extension of interim ordinance restricting development of multifamily housing (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 60 Possibility that state agencies would not review proposed mining operation justified interim zoning to allow county to address environmental and traffic issues (Mont. 2009) 62 PEL 61 Moratorium enacted while application for pawnbroker license is pending is valid (Minn. 2010) 62 PEL 436 INVERSE CONDEMNATION Seller of land denied license for mining has standing to sue for inverse condemnation based on town's actions prior to and after sale (Ala. 2009) 62 PEL 18 Mobile home park rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking on its face (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 19 Colorado Regulatory Impairment of Property Rights Act does not apply to denial of exemption from uniform drainage fee imposed on broad class of owners (Colo. 2009) 62 PEL 87 Florida's Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Protection Act does not create a cause of action to challenge the adoption of an ordinance of general application (Fla. App. 2009) 62 PEL 94 Approval of development, conditioned on removal of billboard, does not amount to a taking where lease allows property owner to require removal of tenant billboard (Ind. App. 2009) 62 PEL 95 Law prohibiting oceanfront owners from obtaining title to accreted land does not effectuate a taking with respect to future accretions (Haw. App. 2009) 62 PEL 138 Approval of new planned unit developments carved out of existing one does not amount to a taking or spot zoning (Tex. App. 2010) 62 PEL 144 Having obtained preliminary plat approval, developer adequately states constitutional claims against city based on its changes in position and delays (U.S. Dist., D. Or. 2010) 62 PEL 171 Flooding in part of the yard for 15 months does not amount to substantial deprivation of all beneficial use of property (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 179 Trial court properly applies res judicata to reject inverse condemnation claim filed after appeal of variance denial was final (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 181 Ordinance's definition of "public sidewalk" satisfies due process requirements of fair warning and does not constitute an unlawful taking by regulation (Ga. 2010) 62 PEL 208 Inverse condemnation claim, based on argument that homeless shelter is not a public purpose, is not ripe (U.S. App., 8th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 216 Rezoning of 4,748-acre Boy Scout camp to classification limited to camps is not arbitrary and does not amount to a taking (Mich. App. 2010) 62 PEL 217 Owner may not revive an inverse condemnation claim subject to a four-year limitations period by pursuing beneficial use determination process 14 years after permit denial (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 255 Inverse condemnation is exclusive remedy available to owners claiming that city assumed control of their land (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 256 Repeated overflow of sewage to creek caused by inadequate pumping station results in physical taking (Ohio 2010) 62 PEL 257 Federal takings claim is barred by state court determination that owners were not entitled to compensation for wrongful wetlands delineation (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 293 Owners of land subject to airport safety zone restrictions suffer a burden and loss of value not shared by others, and are entitled to compensation for regulatory taking (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 294 Mere enactment of a plan designating private island as a bird rookery does not take all economic use; limitations period begins to run with denial of beneficial use designation (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 333 Restoration of beaches, so that private land no longer touches the water, does not constitute a taking (U.S. 2010) 62 PEL 334 Six-year limitations period applies to physical takings that occurred as a result of dunes restoration, but claim based on work done in 1960s is not barred because government failed to notify owners (N.J. 2010) 62 PEL 335 Remedy of damages for inverse condemnation is not available against municipality that had no condemnation authority with respect to property allegedly taken (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 336 State agencies' actions in discouraging U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from issuing permit for mitigation bank on land planned for reservoir do not constitute a taking (Tex. App. 2010) 62 PEL 337 Tort claims relating to sewer backup are time-barred and do not amount to inverse condemnation because the property retains economic value (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 343 Moratorium on work in rights-of-way during road improvement project does not constitute a taking with respect to business relocating as a result of the project (Kan. 2010) 62 PEL 379 Measure 37 waivers are not contracts and do not evidence contracts (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 380 State and county are not immune from liability for flooding caused by interference with natural watercourse (Wash. 2010) 62 PEL 413 JJUDICIAL REVIEW Denial of permit for 18-dog kennel on half-acre residential lot is supported by substantial evidence (Alaska 2009) 62 PEL 20 Code provision limiting developers to a single extension for obtaining plat approval is reasonable (Idaho 2009) 62 PEL 21 Court lacks authority under Land Use Petition Act to review county commissioners' decision that did not revoke building permit or reinstate stop-work order (Wash. App. 2009) 62 PEL 22 Suit challenging zoning officer's preliminary determination that operation of overnight shelter in church would violate code was not ripe (U.S. Dist., E.D. Pa. 2009) 62 PEL 62 Court has no jurisdiction over appeal filed 32 days after denial, regardless of the fact that 30th day fell on a Saturday (N.H. 2009) 62 PEL 96 Issuance of conditional use permit is a final decision and, under Land Use Petition Act, motion for reconsideration does not toll 21-day period for appeal (Wash. App. 2009) 62 PEL 97 Challenge based on prohibition of off-site billboards is not justiciable because proposed billboards would not have met size requirements, which were not challenged (U.S. Dist., D.N.J. 2009) 62 PEL 155 Trial court is within its discretion to reject proposal to create cranberry bog as restoration of wetlands destroyed by unpermitted activities (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 167 Trial court lacks jurisdiction to award damages for breach of settlement agreement between Department of Environmental Management and landfill permit applicant (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 180 Trial court properly applies res judicata to reject inverse condemnation claim filed after appeal of variance denial was final (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 181 After finding improper ex parte communications and bias in hearings, the trial court should have remanded to the Coastal Resources Management Council (R.I. 2010) 62 PEL 182 Trial court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider final order affirming denial of variances (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 218 Court lacks authority to approve settlement agreement with respect to land not affected by the decision under appeal (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 219 Minutes of board meeting may not be challenged by extrinsic evidence (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 228 Denial of application for amendment of site development plan is administrative in nature (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 229 Conclusory statement that developer's substantive rights were prejudiced is inadequate basis to appeal denial of planned unit development approval (Idaho 2010) 62 PEL 295 Application for approval of additional commercial parking in residential zone is barred by res judicata (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 296 Challenge alleging that adoption of zoning ordinance was void ab initio fails for lack of evidence that amendment on the night of adoption was substantial (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 297 Appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review trial court's vacation of consent decree, dissolving an injunction in a case alleging unconstitutional zoning (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 298 Challenges to city's agreement to allow temporary homeless encampment in residential area are barred by failure to challenge the agreement under Land Use Petition Act (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 299 Six-year limitations period applies to physical takings that occurred as a result of dunes restoration, but claim based on work done in 1960s is not barred because government failed to notify owners (N.J. 2010) 62 PEL 335 Challenge to final environmental impact statement is not ripe before any permits have issued (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 338 Entry of judgment of compensation under Measure 37 does not give county the option of waiving regulations that reduced value (Or. 2010) 62 PEL 339 Pending Measure 37 claim became moot at effective date of Measure 49 (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 340 Allegations of tainted testimony before the board are insufficient to justify exception to exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and allow collateral attack on zoning decisions (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 381 Previous state court challenges to county's efforts to ban vacation rentals do not involve current ordinance and do not exhaust remedies as required for federal takings claims (U.S. App., 11th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 382 Ordinance providing that developer would build pump station and could recoup costs from future developments creates duties subject to mandamus action (Ga. 2010) 62 PEL 383 Neighbors have private right of action to enforce statute concerning special permits in agricultural districts (Haw. 2010) 62 PEL 384 Trial court, noting a question concerning validity of ordinance, may not order approval under that ordinance (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 385 Michigan rejects rule that zoning is unreasonable if there are natural resources on the property and "no very serious consequences" would result from extraction (Mich. 2010) 62 PEL 387 Proper remedy for failure to make appropriate findings in imposing recreation fee is remand to planning board (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 414 Claims relating to wall-wrap sign are barred by res judicata (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 415 JUNKYARDS Rule limiting used car dealers' outdoor storage of vehicles to industrial districts does not constitute zoning (D.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 416 Rezoning from agricultural to industrial classification for junkyard use is not arbitrary and does not constitute spot zoning (Miss. 2010) 62 PEL 425 JURISDICTION Owner's application for coastal area plan approval does not vest commission with jurisdiction it would not have had based on property location (Conn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 63 Shorelines Hearings Board lacks jurisdiction to consider individual permit decision based on county's critical area ordinance (Wash. App. 2009) 62 PEL 64 Municipal court lacks jurisdiction over matter relating to statewide permitting of billboards (Ohio App. 2009) 62 PEL 98 Decisions by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Florida Department of Environmental Protection not to exercise jurisdiction over isolated wetlands does not exempt development from county regulations (Fla. App. 2009) 62 PEL 126 Trial court does not have jurisdiction to review city council's legislative approval of overlay zone (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 183 Court lacks jurisdiction to review Texas Commission on Environmental Quality order releasing area from water corporation certificate of convenience and necessity (Tex. App. 2010) 62 PEL 184 10th Circuit rejects U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's definition of "Indian lands" for purposes of Safe Drinking Water Act permitting (U.S. App., 10th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 341 Trial court lacks jurisdiction over claims of intentional nuisance in connection with farming operations (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 359 Trial court, noting a question concerning validity of ordinance, may not order approval under that ordinance (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 385 Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission does not exceed its jurisdiction in considering the impact of activities more than 100 feet upland on wetlands or watercourses (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 386 KLLANDFILLS State authority over landfill permits does not preempt county's authority to amend zoning with respect to land for which permit is pending (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 227 Operation of construction and demolition landfill on three acres of 50-acre parcel establishes vested right with respect to entire parcel (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 342 LOT REGULATION Adjoining owner overcame presumption that 1947 plat was correct and is not barred from suit to require removal of improvements made to disputed land in 1996 (Miss. App. 2010) 62 PEL 258 MMINING Possibility that state agencies would not review proposed mining operation justified interim zoning to allow county to address environmental and traffic issues (Mont. 2009) 62 PEL 61 Testimony by objectors is sufficient to support denial of special exception for expansion of quarry (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 99 Company has a vested right to mine based on substantial expenditures and obtaining a state permit prior to enactment of zoning ordinance (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 185 Creation of slope within setback of sandpit constitutes prohibited excavation (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 220 Request for variance from prohibition on active mining within 500 feet of any residential district or structure is a request for use variance (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 221 Michigan rejects rule that zoning is unreasonable if there are natural resources on the property and "no very serious consequences" would result from extraction (Mich. 2010) 62 PEL 387 MOBILE/MANUFACTURED HOMES Mobile home park rent control ordinance constitutes a regulatory taking on its face (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 19 Ordinance requiring mobile home park closure permit and relocation assistance is valid although state law regulates same issues (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 222 MUNICIPAL LIABILITY Sign company has no property right in nonconforming signs on leased sites after lease is validly terminated (Neb. 2009) 62 PEL 32 Finding that a new house would be almost on the footprint of an existing nonconforming house is insufficient to support variances for the new house (Conn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 37 Purchaser of city property established issues of fact with respect to misrepresentation by city concerning zoning (Tex. App. 2009) 62 PEL 100 Flooding in part of the yard for 15 months does not amount to substantial deprivation of all beneficial use of property (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 179 City may have breached a ministerial duty in failing to assure that sewer lines, in existence when annexed, met requirements for municipal system (Miss. App. 2010) 62 PEL 186 City's immunity for performance of governmental functions does not extend to constitutional or breach of contract claims (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 187 County subdivision coordinator's mistake in telling developer's broker that zoning permitted manufactured housing subdivision is not actionable (S.C. 2010) 62 PEL 223 City is not liable to owners of homes built in floodplain (Neb. 2010) 62 PEL 300 Tort claims relating to sewer backup are time-barred and do not amount to inverse condemnation because the property retains economic value (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 343 Mistaken issuance of building permit for a duplex is a discretionary function, for which city is not liable (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 417 Inadequate sidewalks, curbs, and parking lots are not a "service, program, or activity" covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, but may effectively deny access to covered services (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 418 NNONCONFORMING USES Statute requires proof of intent to abandon apartment building, vacant for several years, not merely physical abandonment (N.J. App. 2009) 62 PEL 65 City's denial of permit for single-room-occupancy rentals in community center violates Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 107 Agricultural buildings are allowed on lot where agriculture is permitted; the presence of a residence on the lot does not require that the buildings qualify as residential accessory uses (Mich. App. 2009) 62 PEL 118 Ordinance allowing issuance of certificate of nonconformance without notice is valid because it allows objectors to appeal within 30 days of obtaining knowledge (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 122 Multifamily dwelling is not a nonconforming "use" in a multifamily district although it does not conform to setback and floor area requirements (La. App. 2010) 62 PEL 139 Neighbors may seek declaration that property damaged by Hurricane Katrina lost nonconforming use status (La. App. 2010) 62 PEL 140 Agreement concerning nonconforming junkyard use, based on ordinance later declared to be invalid, is not invalid for mutual mistake (Wyo. 2010) 62 PEL 141 Company has a vested right to mine based on substantial expenditures and obtaining a state permit prior to enactment of zoning ordinance (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 185 Building permit issued in error before law prohibited billboards does not create a vested right for company to relocate lawful nonconforming billboard (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 192 Board does not exceed its authority in allowing substitution of nonconforming restaurant with drive-through for nonconforming bank with drive-through (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 224 Statute protecting lawful uses from changes in zoning does not exempt existing billboard from redevelopment plan prohibiting billboards (Court of Appeals of Tennessee 2010) 62 PEL 225 Neighbor who initiated untimely appeal of nonconforming use status is entitled to anti-SLAPP immunity based on his subjective motive (R.I. 2010) 62 PEL 247 Acquisition of lots, with knowledge of nonconformity with respect to requirement of 23,800 square feet of contiguous dry area, does not preclude variance (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 259 Attempt to combine partially nonconforming convenience store and separate nonconforming gas station, and to expand onto third property, does not constitute expansion of nonconforming use (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 260 Zoning board of appeals has jurisdiction to determine whether redesigned plans conform to stipulated judgment (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 282 Renovations to nonconforming parking lot do not amount to reconstruction (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 344 Parking deck is not an accessory "use" but a structure requiring amendment of hotel's conditional use permit (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 388 Owner's failure to apply for certificate of nonconforming use as required by ordinance precludes challenge to injunction (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 389 Lot does not lose nonconforming use protection as a result of variance that decreased nonconformity (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 419 Private shooting range, not specifically prohibited by ordinance when the land was annexed, is a nonconforming use (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 420 Alleged agreement to swap nonconforming signs for permit for LED sign does not entitle company to variances (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 431 NOTICES Enactment of interim zoning ordinance requires only notice and a hearing, not additional procedures mandated for enactment of permanent zoning (Mont. 2009) 62 PEL 17 Published notice of hearings on rezoning, in compliance with statute, is insufficient to satisfy due process requirements (Ill. 2009) 62 PEL 101 Town violates Freedom of Information Act in calling "emergency" meeting, without public notice, to discuss employee issue (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 142 Notice of amendment of plan with vacation of easements under Subdivision Map Act is an adequate alternative to process described in Streets and Highway Code (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 310 Failure to comply with statutory notice requirements on second attempt at annexation is inadvertent and not a basis for invalidating annexation (Colo. App. 2010) 62 PEL 317 Adjoining owners, who did not participate in hearing on antenna permit and did not raise issue of improper notice as required by court rule, lack standing to challenge permit (Vt. 2010) 62 PEL 394 NUISANCES States and land trusts may pursue federal common-law public nuisance claims against fossil-fuel electric power plants based on their contributions to global warming (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 14 Denial of permit for 18-dog kennel on half-acre residential lot is supported by substantial evidence (Alaska 2009) 62 PEL 20 Injunction prohibiting operation of medical marijuana dispensary based on city's refusal to permit the use is valid (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 23 Nuisance law, aimed at unruly student gatherings, is constitutional (U.S. Dist., D.R.I. 2010) 62 PEL 143 Owner whose pond was damaged by neighbor's reckless disregard when implementing erosion controls is not entitled to punitive damages (Vt. 2010) 62 PEL 261 Trial court lacks jurisdiction over claims of intentional nuisance in connection with farming operations (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 359 Federal court remands award of damages to owners around Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant (U.S. App., 10th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 407 OOPEN SPACE Owner is entitled to disconnect from village, but open space covenant imposed in exchange for special zoning remains valid (Ill. App. 2009) 62 PEL 44 Unambiguous density ordinance requires no interpretation (Ala. App. 2009) 62 PEL 77 PPARKING Board errs in considering detrimental effects of methadone clinic in denying a special exception to allow parking on adjacent lots (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 66 Objector cannot attack reduction in parking as part of conditional use approval in subsequent proceedings concerning tax increment financing (N.D. 2010) 62 PEL 121 Approval of parking lot on historic grounds is supported by evidence of no feasible, prudent alternatives and that all possible planning has been done to minimize harm (Kan. App. 2010) 62 PEL 136 In changing its position about whether off-site parking would be adequate, city may have breached agreement to work reasonably with owner who built without permits (Tex. App. 2010) 62 PEL 226 Application for approval of additional commercial parking in residential zone is barred by res judicata (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 296 Variance from landscaping requirement, necessary to allow parking required for conversion to minimart, was not arbitrary (La. App. 2010) 62 PEL 314 Renovations to nonconforming parking lot do not amount to reconstruction (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 344 Parking deck is not an accessory "use" but a structure requiring amendment of hotel's conditional use permit (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 388 Ban on street parking of trucks does not violate constitutional rights of pickup truck owner wanting to park in front of his home (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 421 Bulk variances and exceptions to parking standards to allow expansion of existing Wal-Mart are within board's authority (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 435 PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Planned unit development designation may not be used to increase density in agricultural preservation area (S.C. 2009) 62 PEL 102 Fire protection district is not required to seek approval for planned unit development (PUD) amendment before constructing a fire station within the PUD boundaries (Colo. 2009) 62 PEL 111 Approval of new planned unit developments carved out of existing one does not amount to a taking or spot zoning (Tex. App. 2010) 62 PEL 144 Conclusory statement that developer's substantive rights were prejudiced is inadequate basis to appeal denial of planned unit development approval (Idaho 2010) 62 PEL 295 Neighboring owners, participants in hearing on planned unit development amendment, are not entitled to cross-examine developer's witnesses (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 365 Interpretation of planned unit development standards to prohibit proposed Wal-Mart constitutes amendment without notice and hearing, violating constitutional rights of developer (U.S. App., 6th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 366 Approval of planned unit development and concept plan for 743-unit Habitat for Humanity development affirmed (Tenn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 412 PLANNING County's failure to amend its plan to conform to Growth Management Act amendments is subject to challenge, but may not be evaluated by "bright- line rule" (Wash. 2009) 62 PEL 91 Board must address numeric growth objective in general plan, incorporated into master plan, in approving subdivision (Md. 2009) 62 PEL 114 PLANNING COMMISSIONS Planning board lacks authority to approve shopping center use not permitted in residential district (N.J. App. 2009) 62 PEL 103 Planning commission does not wrongfully reject zoning administrator's opinion that proposed consolidation of lots complied with ordinance (Va. 2010) 62 PEL 348 POLLUTION San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District's air pollution control rules and fees are valid (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 24 PREEMPTION Injunction prohibiting operation of medical marijuana dispensary based on city's refusal to permit the use is valid (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 23 Federal Land Policy Management Act does not preempt local minimum lot size requirement (U.S. App., 10th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 25 Ordinance prohibiting commercial wind farms throughout county, while allowing small wind energy operations, is valid (Kan. 2009) 62 PEL 55 Testimony by objectors is sufficient to support denial of special exception for expansion of quarry (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 99 City may not impose franchise fee on natural gas pipeline serving an electrical power plant (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 151 Town's stream buffer requirements are not preempted by less stringent state law (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 205 City may not violate obligation under state allocation of regional housing need based on housing cap enacted by initiative (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2010) 62 PEL 214 Ordinance requiring mobile home park closure permit and relocation assistance is valid although state law regulates same issues (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 222 State authority over landfill permits does not preempt county's authority to amend zoning with respect to land for which permit is pending (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 227 Federal Pipeline Safety Act does not preempt local setback requirements for natural gas facilities (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 301 Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act preempts municipal regulation of operation involving transfer of ethanol from rail cars to trucks and transportation over city streets (U.S. App., 4th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 345 Town lacks authority to deny building permit for pier approved by Department of Natural Resources (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 346 Ordinance granting preference to providers using certain technology is preempted by federal law (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 396 City may not argue federal preemption of Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program Act as justification of ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 422 Town lacks authority to create Accessory Apartment Bureau to review determinations of hearing officer (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 423 PROCEDURE, ADMINISTRATIVE Injunction prohibiting operation of medical marijuana dispensary based on city's refusal to permit the use is valid (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 23 Open Meetings Act is not violated by informal meeting of commissioners to discuss court ruling without taking action (Ga. App. 2009) 62 PEL 26 Approval of Act 250 permit for retirement community on Middlebury College property was supported by substantial evidence (Vt. 2009) 62 PEL 27 Land Use Board of Appeals errs in rejecting city's plausible interpretation of its code as not requiring traffic impact assessment for approval of WalMart (Or. App. 2009) 62 PEL 67 Opponent has right to cross-examine witnesses before board of appeals (Md. App. 2009) 62 PEL 104 Appeal from historic preservation board's denial of permits is subject to Public Meetings Act, but decision made at a public meeting, following closed deliberations, is not void (Wyo. 2010) 62 PEL 145 District council acted illegally in first assuming jurisdiction over special exception application, then withdrawing its decision without holding a hearing (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 188 Minutes of meeting are adequate "writing" to justify denial of conditional use permit for telecommunications tower (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 194 Department of Natural Resources does not have authority to refuse to certify bluff setback variance (Minn. 2010) 62 PEL 195 City traffic engineer lacks authority to waive setback requirement for triplex dwelling on a street that does not meet width requirement (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 196 State engineer may not use 2003 statutory amendment as a basis for delaying action on water appropriation applications filed in 1989 (Nev. 2010) 62 PEL 198 Minutes of board meeting may not be challenged by extrinsic evidence (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 228 Denial of application for amendment of site development plan is administrative in nature (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 229 Bids for long-term lease of dormitory building are subject to public bidding statute (Mass. 2010) 62 PEL 302 Requirement that zoning commission give wetland commission's report "due consideration" before deciding on site plan application does not make the decisions interdependent (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 347 Planning commission does not wrongfully reject zoning administrator's opinion that proposed consolidation of lots complied with ordinance (Va. 2010) 62 PEL 348 Whether expansion of gaming resort will "encroach upon, damage, or destroy any historic property" must be determined under ordinance standards (S.D. 2010) 62 PEL 375 Rescission of constructive approval requires sound reasons (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 390 PROCEDURE, JUDICIAL No error in certifying class of all who paid allegedly excessive building permit fee (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 146 In accepting copy of zoning ordinance, where original was lost for many years, court does not enact or amend legislation (Ga. 2010) 62 PEL 147 Litigant is entitled to notice and hearing prior to court's order prohibiting acceptance of his pleadings absent leave of court (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 148 Trial court is required to determine whether subpoena requesting billboard company to provide specific lease details is reasonable (Tenn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 149 After finding improper ex parte communications and bias in hearings, the trial court should have remanded to the Coastal Resources Management Council (R.I. 2010) 62 PEL 182 Inverse condemnation claim, based on argument that homeless shelter is not a public purpose, is not ripe (U.S. App., 8th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 216 Materials prepared in reasonable anticipation of litigation, before commencement of litigation, are not public records and are protected from disclosure (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 230 City council members and planning commissioners may not be deposed in challenge to zoning amendments (U.S. Dist., W.D. Wash. 2010) 62 PEL 262 Federal takings claim is barred by state court determination that owners were not entitled to compensation for wrongful wetlands delineation (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 293 PROCEDURE, LEGISLATIVE Enactment of interim zoning ordinance requires only notice and a hearing, not additional procedures mandated for enactment of permanent zoning (Mont. 2009) 62 PEL 17 Statute authorizing creation of self-help business improvement districts is valid (Ala. 2009) 62 PEL 49 County lacks statutory authority to enact adequate public facilities ordinance for schools (N.C. App. 2009) 62 PEL 50 Although e-mails discussing historic overlay ordinance violate Open Meetings Act, enactment is not void because there was new and substantial deliberation at public meeting (Tenn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 105 Filing photocopy of resolution of extension is effective because county had notice of that filing and of town's disapproval of rezoning within statutory time limit (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 150 In avoiding public participation while visiting proposed subdivision site, board of county commissioners violates open meetings law, but violation does not prejudice substantial rights (Idaho 2010) 62 PEL 263 PUBLIC LAND Landlocked owners established prescriptive easement over state land, but are not entitled to place wooden pallets in wetlands without permit (Mich. App. 2010) 62 PEL 264 PUBLIC UTILITIES Board of Public Utilities lacks authority to base decisions concerning extension of services on whether area is designated for "smart growth" (N.J. App. 2009) 62 PEL 106 City may not impose franchise fee on natural gas pipeline serving an electrical power plant (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 151 Owner sufficiently alleges certain claims with respect to delay of conditional use permit for a radio tower (U.S. Dist., S.D. Ohio 2010) 62 PEL 242 Sale of water utility, pursuant to Municipal Utilities Law, is subject to referendum under the Faulkner Act (N.J. 2010) 62 PEL 254 Practice of billing only those with city water meters for stormwater management utility charges may violate equal protection rights (Ariz. App. 2010) 62 PEL 405 RRECREATION Indoor shooting range qualifies as a "recreation facility," a conditional use in rural agricultural district, and may have accessory uses including retail sales and classrooms (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 48 Overlay district permitting recreational trail through orchard is not a rezoning subject to review by Growth Management Hearings Board and is not inconsistent with protection of agriculture (Wash. App. 2009) 62 PEL 79 REDEVELOPMENT Redevelopment design guidelines need not comply with statutory notice and procedural requirements for zoning (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 152 Homestead Housing Preservation Act prohibits transfer of large residential building to a for-profit entity for rehabilitation (D.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 153 Redevelopment agency's relocation of school district offices to obtain land for affordable housing complies with Community Redevelopment Law (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 265 Land disposition agreement is not subject to competitive bidding, and city's use of a nonprofit corporation to evaluate and negotiate proposals is not unlawful delegation (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 266 Declaration of blight, based on statutory factors, does not withstand scrutiny under New Jersey Constitution absent finding that conditions contribute to problems outside the area (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 267 Amendment of redevelopment plan to allow high-rise development where plan originally intended to provide artists with affordable live/work space is not arbitrary (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 303 New York's highest court upholds findings in support of condemnation for expansion of Columbia University in West Harlem (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 349 RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS Injunction upheld because church is unlikely to succeed on its RLUIPA "equal terms" challenge (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 28 Religious order is not entitled to operate temporary housing facility for convicts in single-family residential district (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 29 Suit challenging zoning officer's preliminary determination that operation of overnight shelter in church would violate code was not ripe (U.S. Dist., E.D. Pa. 2009) 62 PEL 62 City's denial of permit for single-room-occupancy rentals in community center violates Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 107 Failure to use site plan approval process, available to religious institutions as an alternative to special use permit process, does not discriminate against church seeking approval for expansion (Ill. App. 2009) 62 PEL 154 Evidence of antichurch animus, supporting award of $3,714,622 under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, is "very strong" (U.S. App., 4th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 189 Church is entitled to damages, based on ordinance violation of RLUIPA preventing its use of property as a church (U.S. Dist., N.J. 2010) 62 PEL 268 Decision to hold public school graduation at church, despite availability of comparable public facilities, constitutes impermissible endorsement of religion (U.S. Dist., D. Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 287 County's treatment of existing church's application for special permit to expand is not neutral and violates Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (U.S. App., 10th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 304 Denial of variance for religious primary school in district permitting preschools does not violate equal protection (Mich. 2010) 62 PEL 321 Ordinance requiring permit for large group feeding events is constitutional (U.S. App., 11th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 368 Exclusion of churches from commercial district does not violate Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act because secular assembly uses are treated similarly (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 391 Denial of approval for church, permitted in the district, violates Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (U.S. Dist., S.D.N.Y. 2010) 62 PEL 424 RENT CONTROL Landlord is not entitled to attorney fees as prevailing party in rent control litigation against city (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 166 Contract waiver of right to withdraw units from rental market, as part of settlement of tax claim, is unenforceable under Ellis Act (Cal. App. 2010) 62 PEL 350 REZONING Open Meetings Act is not violated by informal meeting of commissioners to discuss court ruling without taking action (Ga. App. 2009) 62 PEL 26 Consistency with comprehensive plan designation for future residential use does not entitle developer to rezoning of agricultural land (Iowa App. 2009) 62 PEL 30 Neighboring owners have standing to challenge rezoning (N.C. App. 2009) 62 PEL 33 Overlay district permitting recreational trail through orchard is not a rezoning subject to review by Growth Management Hearings Board and is not inconsistent with protection of agriculture (Wash. App. 2009) 62 PEL 79 Published notice of hearings on rezoning, in compliance with statute, is insufficient to satisfy due process requirements (Ill. 2009) 62 PEL 101 Denial of rezoning is a legislative act and not arbitrary when based on safety concerns (Ark. 2009) 62 PEL 108 Denial of rezoning from single-family to high-density classification is not arbitrary (Miss. App. 2009) 62 PEL 109 Filing photocopy of resolution of extension is effective because county had notice of that filing and of town's disapproval of rezoning within statutory time limit (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 150 Auto salvage shop owner fails to establish equal protection violations in city's enforcement actions (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 169 Refusal to rezone residential property to limited commercial classification indicated on comprehensive plan is not arbitrary (Mo. App. 2010) 62 PEL 190 Owner who fails to file adequate foundation plans before publication of notice of zoning change does not have a vested right (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 197 Home rule city's failure to comply with its own regulations is not sufficient to invalidate the legislative act of rezoning (Ill. App. 2010) 62 PEL 231 Developer, who filed a challenge to ordinance after it had been invalidated in another challenge but before township had reasonable time to amend, is not entitled to automatic relief (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 232 Rezoning from agricultural to planned development classification, changing only minimum lot size, violates enabling statute requirements for planned development (S.C. 2010) 62 PEL 233 Neighboring owners fail to show pecuniary injury sufficient to establish standing to challenge rezoning of recycling business (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 308 Owner's failure to build planned gasoline station before rezoning prohibited the use does not constitute a condition peculiar to the property and justify a variance (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 331 Failure to state reasons for denial of rezoning does not result in automatic approval (Minn. 2010) 62 PEL 363 Development of multifamily uses, on land zoned for single-family use, does not constitute a change in neighborhood character supporting rezoning (Miss. App. 2010) 62 PEL 392 Rezoning from agricultural to industrial classification for junkyard use is not arbitrary and does not constitute spot zoning (Miss. 2010) 62 PEL 425 Inconsistency with comprehensive plan is inadequate basis for challenge to zoning classification (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 426 Growth Management Hearings Board has jurisdiction to review rezoning involving amendment of comprehensive plan and find it inconsistent with county planning policies, in violation of Growth Management Act (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 427 Rezoning from "office" to "office retail" is a change in underlying use and inconsistent with the plan, which contemplates low intensity in office district (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 428 SSIGNS AND BILLBOARDS Entire area may be considered "predominantly used for residential purposes" and not qualified for billboard placement, based on presence of residential uses (Ark. 2009) 62 PEL 31 Sign company has no property right in nonconforming signs on leased sites after lease is validly terminated (Neb. 2009) 62 PEL 32 Ordinance requiring abatement of off-premise commercial signs and not regulating noncommercial speech is valid (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 68 Approval of development, conditioned on removal of billboard, does not amount to a taking where lease allows property owner to require removal of tenant billboard (Ind. App. 2009) 62 PEL 95 Municipal court lacks jurisdiction over matter relating to statewide permitting of billboards (Ohio App. 2009) 62 PEL 98 Sign ordinance with exemption for temporary directional signs relating to a qualifying event is a content-neutral, narrowly tailored regulation that leaves open ample alternatives for communication (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 110 Challenge based on prohibition of off-site billboards is not justiciable because proposed billboards would not have met size requirements, which were not challenged (U.S. Dist., D.N.J. 2009) 62 PEL 155 City's ordinance and enforcement are constitutional even if underinclusive to serve goals relating to aesthetics and traffic safety (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 191 Building permit issued in error before law prohibited billboards does not create a vested right for company to relocate lawful nonconforming billboard (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 192 Statute protecting lawful uses from changes in zoning does not exempt existing billboard from redevelopment plan prohibiting billboards (Tenn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 225 Setback between sign and "park" is properly measured to the curb, not to right-of-way setback within park (Mo. App. 2010) 62 PEL 234 Authority to impose special assessments for "unusual conditions" includes paving roads (Wyo. 2010) 62 PEL 249 Township's enforcement of zoning ordinance against violations visible from two highways, before pursuing less-visible violations, is not unreasonable (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 252 Holding that specific provisions of municipal code and planning code are invalid cannot be read as striking down city's entire scheme of sign regulation (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 269 Exceptions to bans on certain signs do not undermine city's asserted interests; bans are valid despite exceptions (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 286 Enactment of exception to billboard moratorium, allowing billboards on public arenas as a conditional use, and immediate approval of permits for city-owned arena, is valid (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 305 Failure to disclose intent to construct a digital display sign face renders permit for reconstruction of nonconforming sign invalid (Tenn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 306 Political message mural is a sign and regulations are constitutional (U.S. Dist., E.D. Mo. 2010) 62 PEL 323 Denied a permit based on valid billboard size restrictions, applicant lacks standing to challenge other provisions of sign code (U.S. Dist., N.D. Cal. 2010) 62 PEL 351 Challenges to Cincinnati's ban on bench billboards are rejected for lack of standing (U.S. Dist., S.D. Ohio 2010) 62 PEL 352 Limits on advertising signs in windows do not violate First Amendment (U.S. Dist., S.D. Tex. 2010) 62 PEL 353 Claims relating to wall-wrap sign are barred by res judicata (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 415 Size restriction on temporary signs does not violate First Amendment (U.S. Dist., D. Md. 2010) 62 PEL 429 Ordinance prohibiting billboard extensions is invalid because city council failed to articulate any rational basis for the enactment (U.S. App., 8th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 430 Alleged agreement to swap nonconforming signs for permit for LED sign does not entitle company to variances (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 431 SITE PLANS Developer must demonstrate compliance with statutory requirements for senior housing to obtain site plan approval (N.H. 2009) 62 PEL 125 Failure to use site plan approval process, available to religious institutions as an alternative to special use permit process, does not discriminate against church seeking approval for expansion (Ill. App. 2009) 62 PEL 154 Developer is not entitled to the requested density, inconsistent with average lot sizes in area, based on Land Evaluation and Site Assessment score and successful compatibility meeting (W.V. 2010) 62 PEL 244 Requirement that zoning commission give wetland commission's report "due consideration" before deciding on site plan application does not make the decisions interdependent (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 347 SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS Board errs in considering detrimental effects of methadone clinic in denying a special exception to allow parking on adjacent lots (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 66 Zoning amendment to permit wind energy facility is valid and applicant submitted adequate information for issuance of zoning permit (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 89 Testimony by objectors is sufficient to support denial of special exception for expansion of quarry (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 99 District council acted illegally in first assuming jurisdiction over special exception application, then withdrawing its decision without holding a hearing (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 188 Denial of special exception for liquor store in commercial area, based on unsubstantiated fears about traffic and crime, is arbitrary (La. App. 2010) 62 PEL 307 SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS Fire protection district is not required to seek approval for planned unit development (PUD) amendment before constructing a fire station within the PUD boundaries (Colo. 2009) 62 PEL 111 Regardless of whether timing of road upgrade requirement put school district at a disadvantage with respect to its budget, the law unambiguously requires upgrade (Alaska 2010) 62 PEL 270 Irrigation District has authority to enact connection fee and establish reserves, but must calculate fee according to use (Idaho 2010) 62 PEL 354 SPECIAL USE PERMITS Whether special use ordinance constitutes an impermissible prior restraint on adult uses depends on extent to which it applies to such uses (U.S. Dist., N.D. Ill. 2009) 62 PEL 42 Substantial evidence supports denial of special permit for weekly summer rental of student apartments (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 156 District council acted illegally in first assuming jurisdiction over special exception application, then withdrawing its decision without holding a hearing (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 188 Zoning board does not have authority to waive conditions for special use as a home business in a residential zone (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 271 Amendment of redevelopment plan to allow high-rise development where plan originally intended to provide artists with affordable live/work space is not arbitrary (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 303 County's treatment of existing church's application for special permit to expand is not neutral and violates Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (U.S. App., 10th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 304 Denial of special exception for liquor store in commercial area, based on unsubstantiated fears about traffic and crime, is arbitrary (La. App. 2010) 62 PEL 307 SPOT ZONING Possibility that state agencies would not review proposed mining operation justified interim zoning to allow county to address environmental and traffic issues (Mont. 2009) 62 PEL 61 Approval of new planned unit developments carved out of existing one does not amount to a taking or spot zoning (Tex. App. 2010) 62 PEL 144 Denial of rezoning, based on owner's intended use, constitutes impermissible reverse spot zoning (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 235 Grant of conditional use permit for 13-story building is supported by substantial evidence and does not constitute spot zoning (Miss. 2010) 62 PEL 320 Development of multifamily uses, on land zoned for single-family use, does not constitute a change in neighborhood character supporting rezoning (Miss. App. 2010) 62 PEL 392 Rezoning from agricultural to industrial classification for junkyard use is not arbitrary and does not constitute spot zoning (Miss. 2010) 62 PEL 425 STANDING Neighbors have standing to challenge annexation based on allegations of reasonably ascertainable future harm (Nev. 2009) 62 PEL 4 States and land trusts may pursue federal common-law public nuisance claims against fossil-fuel electric power plants based on their contributions to global warming (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 14 County has standing to challenge issuance of radioactive waste permit by Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment if county does not issue permit (Colo. 2009) 62 PEL 16 Seller of land denied license for mining has standing to sue for inverse condemnation based on town's actions prior to and after sale (Ala. 2009) 62 PEL 18 Code provision limiting developers to a single extension for obtaining plat approval is reasonable (Idaho 2009) 62 PEL 21 Neighboring owners have standing to challenge rezoning (N.C. App. 2009) 62 PEL 33 Association of owners fails to establish standing to challenge approval of land management plan for Tims Ford Reservoir (U.S. App., 6th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 69 Association lacks standing to challenge denial of its proposed amendment to zoning regulations (Conn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 112 Competitor lacks standing to challenge issuance of permit for quarter horse racing (Fla. App. 2010) 62 PEL 157 Neighbors allege harm to special interests sufficient to establish standing to challenge variance (Tenn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 158 Lessees do not have standing under the Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act; landowner's claims of tortuous interference with contract against city fall within immunity exception (Tex. App. 2009) 62 PEL 159 Approval of 8,000-animal feedlot within one mile of site for which a residential building permit had issued is not arbitrary (N.D. 2010) 62 PEL 163 Company lacks standing to appeal denial of special use permit absent proof that conditional contract to purchase premises remained in effect (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 193 First Amendment does not compel a "government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society" (U.S. 2010) 62 PEL 246 County wrongfully denied objecting neighbors' intervention in contested case hearing on conditions of subdivision approval (Wyo. 2010) 62 PEL 272 Neighboring owners fail to show pecuniary injury sufficient to establish standing to challenge rezoning of recycling business (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 308 Citizen group lacks standing to challenge comprehensive plan based on potential general harm (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 309 Grant of conditional use permit for 13-story building is supported by substantial evidence and does not constitute spot zoning (Miss. 2010) 62 PEL 320 Remedy of damages for inverse condemnation is not available against municipality that had no condemnation authority with respect to property allegedly taken (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 336 Denied a permit based on valid billboard size restrictions, applicant lacks standing to challenge other provisions of sign code (U.S. Dist., N.D. Cal. 2010) 62 PEL 351 Challenges to Cincinnati's ban on bench billboards are rejected for lack of standing (U.S. Dist., S.D. Ohio 2010) 62 PEL 352 Owner has standing to appeal board's denial of contract purchaser's application for variances (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 355 Owners of land in New York State within 100 feet of site approved for church in Connecticut have standing to challenge approvals (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 393 Adjoining owners, who did not participate in hearing on antenna permit and did not raise issue of improper notice as required by court rule, lack standing to challenge permit (Vt. 2010) 62 PEL 394 Imposing fee for new school facilities as condition of approval is ultra vires (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 408 Proper remedy for failure to make appropriate findings in imposing recreation fee is remand to planning board (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 414 Association, incorporated after appeal was filed, lacks standing absent proof of particularized interest or participation in administrative proceedings (Me. 2010) 62 PEL 432 Owners of land outside city lack common-law standing to challenge annexation for construction of ethanol plant (Neb. 2010) 62 PEL 433 SUBDIVISION Federal Land Policy Management Act does not preempt local minimum lot size requirement (U.S. App., 10th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 25 Denial of partition, based on finding that the division would ultimately result in subdivision, is properly reversed in the absence of evidence to support that finding (Or. App. 2009) 62 PEL 34 Owner who subdivided after town published proposed amendment to minimum lot width is not entitled to variance (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 39 Finding that character of the land is unsuitable for development is supported by evidence and provides an adequate basis for denial of subdivision that otherwise complies with regulations (Conn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 70 Board must address numeric growth objective in general plan, incorporated into master plan, in approving subdivision (Md. 2009) 62 PEL 114 Condominium developments in areas without relevant zoning regulations are subject to review under Subdivision Act (Mont. 2009) 62 PEL 115 Denial of permits for construction in subdivision based on noncompliance with infrastructure regulations does not amount to unlawful moratorium (Ariz. App. 2009) 62 PEL 116 Developer of land in Compatible Growth Area of the Central Pine Barrens is required to obtain exemption from clearing limitations to subdivide land previously cleared for agriculture (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 160 Planning board's continuing jurisdiction over conditions of approval does not exempt developer from 30-day appeals period (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 164 Having obtained preliminary plat approval, developer adequately states constitutional claims against city based on its changes in position and delays (U.S. Dist., D. Or. 2010) 62 PEL 171 County subdivision coordinator's mistake in telling developer's broker that zoning permitted manufactured housing subdivision is not actionable (S.C. 2010) 62 PEL 223 Conveyance of land for road extension, bisecting remaining property, does not result in creation of separate lots because owner did not record new legal description or plat (Va. 2010) 62 PEL 236 County lacks authority to define "subdivision" as referring to residential district, effectively prohibiting permitted one-acre use in agricultural district (Va. 2010) 62 PEL 237 Ordinance without specific standards for rejecting subdivision based on concerns about flooding and slopes is impermissibly vague (Ala. App. 2010) 62 PEL 245 Adjoining owner overcame presumption that 1947 plat was correct and is not barred from suit to require removal of improvements made to disputed land in 1996 (Miss. App. 2010) 62 PEL 258 Subdivision applicant has burden to identify impacts, provide information, and propose mitigation (Mont. 2010) 62 PEL 311 Approval of subdivision with "unusual" lot configuration to use environmentally critical area to meet minimum lot size is not error (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 312 Small city that has identified single-family housing as "needed" is required to review applications under statutory "clear and objective" standards (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 376 Owners of land in New York State within 100 feet of site approved for church in Connecticut have standing to challenge approvals (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 393 Subdivision proposal, otherwise compliant with ordinance, may not be denied based on vague "interconnectivity" requirement or inconsistency with comprehensive plan (Minn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 395 Variance allowing commercial use of barn remains in effect despite subdivision of land because it was not conditioned on size or configuration of site (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 397 TTELECOMMUNICATIONS Denial of permits for telecommunications facilities in public rights-of-way, based on aesthetics, does not violate Telecommunications Act (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 35 Denial of permit for telecommunications tower on small lot does not violate Telecommunications Act (U.S. App., 8th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 36 Denial of variance for telecommunications tower does not violate Telecommunications Act or amount to exclusionary zoning (U.S. Dist. E.D. Pa. 2009) 62 PEL 71 Minutes of meeting are adequate "writing" to justify denial of conditional use permit for telecommunications tower (U.S. App., 7th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 194 Owner sufficiently alleges certain claims with respect to delay of conditional use permit for a radio tower (U.S. Dist., S.D. Ohio 2010) 62 PEL 242 Council not authorized to consider impact of emissions in permitting tower and not required to make finding of public need (U.S. Dist., D. Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 274 Variances of about 75 percent from setbacks required for telecommunications towers do not meet statutory standards for hardship (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 313 Adjoining owners, who did not participate in hearing on antenna permit and did not raise issue of improper notice as required by court rule, lack standing to challenge permit (Vt. 2010) 62 PEL 394 Ordinance granting preference to providers using certain technology is preempted by federal law (U.S. App., 2nd Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 396 TRANSPORTATION Oregon Transportation Planning Rule requires consideration of impacts on transportation prior to zoning amendment (Or. App. 2009) 62 PEL 72 Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act preempts municipal regulation of operation involving transfer of ethanol from rail cars to trucks and transportation over city streets (U.S. App., 4th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 345 UVVARIANCES Finding that a new house would be almost on the footprint of an existing nonconforming house is insufficient to support variances for the new house (Conn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 37 Parcel never approved as a buildable lot in 1977 subdivision is not entitled to variance from current bulk requirements (Conn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 38 Owner who subdivided after town published proposed amendment to minimum lot width is not entitled to variance (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 39 Owner's deception in describing use is not alone a basis for denying variances, but can be considered in weighing statutory factors (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 40 Award of density bonus units and variances is supported by substantial evidence that approvals were necessary to allow construction of low-income residential units in mixed use development (Cal. App. 2009) 62 PEL 58 Denial of variance for telecommunications tower does not violate Telecommunications Act or amount to exclusionary zoning (U.S. Dist., E.D. Pa. 2009) 62 PEL 71 Neighbors allege harm to special interests sufficient to establish standing to challenge variance (Tenn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 158 Trial court properly applies res judicata to reject inverse condemnation claim filed after appeal of variance denial was final (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 181 Department of Natural Resources does not have authority to refuse to certify bluff setback variance (Minn. 2010) 62 PEL 195 City traffic engineer lacks authority to waive setback requirement for triplex dwelling on a street that does not meet width requirement (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 196 Town's stream buffer requirements are not preempted by less stringent state law (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 205 Trial court lacks jurisdiction to reconsider final order affirming denial of variances (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 218 Request for variance from prohibition on active mining within 500 feet of any residential district or structure is a request for use variance (Wis. App. 2010) 62 PEL 221 Acquisition of lots, with knowledge of nonconformity with respect to requirement of 23,800 square feet of contiguous dry area, does not preclude variance (Mass App. 2010) 62 PEL 259 Board does not err in granting variances for drive-through lanes at retail businesses (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 275 Purchaser of residential property, previously used as furniture store pursuant to a variance, does not have reasonable expectation that use as a motorcycle sales business would be allowed (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 276 Zoning board of appeals has jurisdiction to determine whether redesigned plans conform to stipulated judgment (Conn. 2010) 62 PEL 282 Federal Pipeline Safety Act does not preempt local setback requirements for natural gas facilities (U.S. App., 5th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 301 Variances of about 75 percent from setbacks required for telecommunications towers do not meet statutory standards for hardship (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 313 Variance from landscaping requirement, necessary to allow parking required for conversion to minimart, was not arbitrary (La. App. 2010) 62 PEL 314 Because variance is not a legal right, owner is not entitled to a contested case hearing regardless of adversarial nature of proceedings (Wyo. 2010) 62 PEL 315 Grant of conditional use permit for 13-story building is supported by substantial evidence and does not constitute spot zoning (Miss. 2010) 62 PEL 320 Owner's failure to build planned gasoline station before rezoning prohibited the use does not constitute a condition peculiar to the property and justify a variance (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 331 Owner has standing to appeal board's denial of contract purchaser's application for variances (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 355 Amendment to Critical Area Act, requiring mitigation and abatement of violations prior to receipt of a variance, is intended to apply prospectively (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 372 Variance allowing commercial use of barn remains in effect despite subdivision of land because it was not conditioned on size or configuration of site (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 397 Failure to prosecute fences not conforming to height restriction does not make denial of a variance for a fence unreasonable (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 398 Lot does not lose nonconforming use protection as a result of variance that decreased nonconformity (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 419 Alleged agreement to swap nonconforming signs for permit for LED sign does not entitle company to variances (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 431 Difficulty in marketing property does not constitute unusual hardship (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 434 Bulk variances and exceptions to parking standards to allow expansion of existing Wal-Mart are within board's authority (N.J. App. 2010) 62 PEL 435 VESTED RIGHTS Sign company has no property right in nonconforming signs on leased sites after lease is validly terminated (Neb. 2009) 62 PEL 32 Owner who subdivided after town published proposed amendment to minimum lot width is not entitled to variance (N.Y. App. 2009) 62 PEL 39 Developer does not have vested rights although it spent $96,500 on the process and applied for site plan approval (Wash. 2009) 62 PEL 41 Developer of adult use has no vested right in erroneously issued permits (R.I. 2009) 62 PEL 73 Management district has authority to enact rules restricting amount of underground water that may be pumped from Denver Basin wells (Colo. App. 2009) 62 PEL 75 Denial of permits for construction in subdivision based on noncompliance with infrastructure regulations does not amount to unlawful moratorium (Ariz. App. 2009) 62 PEL 116 Vacant lot in subdivision approved in 1965 is exempt from subsequently enacted coastal area, floodplain, and lot coverage regulations (Conn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 117 Planning board's continuing jurisdiction over conditions of approval does not exempt developer from 30-day appeals period (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 164 Company has a vested right to mine based on substantial expenditures and obtaining a state permit prior to enactment of zoning ordinance (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 185 Building permit issued in error before law prohibited billboards does not create a vested right for company to relocate lawful nonconforming billboard (N.C. App. 2010) 62 PEL 192 Owner who fails to file adequate foundation plans before publication of notice of zoning change does not have a vested right (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 197 Developer, having complied with ordinance timetable for submission of preliminary application, is not subject to new code provisions (Del. 2010) 62 PEL 238 Expenditure of $272,022 is not sufficiently "substantial" to create vested right in existing zoning to build 196-unit building (Ill. App. 2010) 62 PEL 277 Operation of construction and demolition landfill on three acres of 50-acre parcel establishes vested right with respect to entire parcel (N.Y. App. 2010) 62 PEL 342 Having obtained permits and begun construction on Phase I, including infrastructure for Phase II, developer does not have a vested right to construct Phase II (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 357 Alleged agreement to swap nonconforming signs for permit for LED sign does not entitle company to variances (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 431 Moratorium enacted while application for pawnbroker license is pending is valid (Minn. 2010) 62 PEL 436 Uses authorized at the time the land was acquired, and the ratio of expenditures to cost of completion, should have been considered in determining vested rights under Measure 37 waivers (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 437 Developer acquires no vested right in conditional use application that does not comply with applicable regulations (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 438 WWASTE DISPOSAL Environmental impact statement for landfill near Joshua Tree National Park is deficient in not considering goals and alternatives beyond those of the developer (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2009) 62 PEL 56 Town's agreement to cooperate with solid waste district is not an impermissible delegation of police power (Vt. 2009) 62 PEL 59 Developer is required to show that it would use an "approved means" of on-site sewage treatment, but is not required to specify a particular design (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 74 Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act does not impose automatic liability on a municipality for any sewage discharge that occurs within its jurisdiction (Mich. App. 2010) 62 PEL 439 WATER AND WATERCOURSES Management district has authority to enact rules restricting amount of underground water that may be pumped from Denver Basin wells (Colo. App. 2009) 62 PEL 75 Trial judge abuses discretion in refusing to order restoration of wetland based on his opinion that site is "beautiful" and that state definition of navigable water ought to be changed (Wis. App. 2009) 62 PEL 76 State engineer may not use 2003 statutory amendment as a basis for delaying action on water appropriation applications filed in 1989 (Nev. 2010) 62 PEL 198 In denying special permit, board is required to identify how each of at least 16 wetlands did not meet seven ordinance criteria (N.H. 2010) 62 PEL 278 Shoreline master program setbacks and buildable area limitations do not constitute indirect charges on development, imposed by municipality in violation of statute (Wash. App. 2010) 62 PEL 288 Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Commission does not exceed its jurisdiction in considering the impact of activities more than 100 feet upland on wetlands or watercourses (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 386 ZZONING Township may rely on county comprehensive plan rather than prepare its own for purposes of enacting zoning measure (Ohio 2009) 62 PEL 47 Oregon Transportation Planning Rule requires consideration of impacts on transportation prior to zoning amendment (Or. App. 2009) 62 PEL 72 Zoning amendment to permit wind energy facility is valid and applicant submitted adequate information for issuance of zoning permit (Pa. App. 2009) 62 PEL 89 Approval of permitted use may not be denied on the basis of owner's past conduct, which was never the subject of enforcement action (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 161 Adoption of a new zoning classification is legislative and subject to referendum (Utah 2010) 62 PEL 178 Gravel pit does not qualify as a special use for "commercial businesses supplying products and services for agricultural and forestry activities" (Idaho 2010) 62 PEL 209 Short-term rentals of lakefront house are not commercial use in violation of residential zoning classification (Ind. App. 2010) 62 PEL 210 Terms "minimum lot size" and "land area per dwelling unit" have different meanings (Me. 2010) 62 PEL 211 State authority over landfill permits does not preempt county's authority to amend zoning with respect to land for which permit is pending (Md. App. 2010) 62 PEL 227 Code provision requiring developer to prove that project will not impair the future development of a comprehensive neighborhood circulation system is impermissibly vague (Or. App. 2010) 62 PEL 239 Proposed wellness center is properly rejected as more like a prohibited "spa" than a permitted "medical center" (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 289 State Aeronautics Act does not preclude initiative enactment of zoning amendments permitting mixed use development near airport (Cal. App. 2010 2009) 62 PEL 292 Appeals court lacks jurisdiction to review trial court's vacation of consent decree, dissolving an injunction in a case alleging unconstitutional zoning (U.S. App., 9th Cir. 2010) 62 PEL 298 Because variance is not a legal right, owner is not entitled to a contested case hearing regardless of adversarial nature of proceedings (Wyo. 2010) 62 PEL 315 Having obtained constructive approval, developer is protected from zoning changes from date of application (Mass. App. 2010) 62 PEL 316 Michigan rejects rule that zoning is unreasonable if there are natural resources on the property and "no very serious consequences" would result from extraction (Mich. 2010) 62 PEL 387 ZONING BOARDS Requirement that zoning commission give wetland commission's report "due consideration" before deciding on site plan application does not make the decisions interdependent (Conn. App. 2010) 62 PEL 347 ZONING ORDINANCES Unambiguous density ordinance requires no interpretation (Ala. App. 2009) 62 PEL 77 Association lacks standing to challenge denial of its proposed amendment to zoning regulations (Conn. App. 2009) 62 PEL 112 Nursery where container plants are maintained for sale does not qualify for agricultural exemption from zoning ordinance (Ohio App. 2010) 62 PEL 203 Challenge alleging that adoption of zoning ordinance was void ab initio fails for lack of evidence that amendment on the night of adoption was substantial (Pa. App. 2010) 62 PEL 297 | My APA
ID or E-mail
Password Remember My ID JOIN APABecome a member and connect with thousands of people who share your dedication to building vibrant communities. Join | |
