228 results for 'cat:"Zoning"'.
J. Torresen grants in part a paper manufacturer's motion to dismiss class action claims brought against it by homeowners who live near its Old Town mill, which they claim has not been maintained properly, resulting in emissions of harsh rotten egg odors that are a nuisance and have devalued surrounding properties. The homeowners' nuisance claims cannot be dismissed based on their lack of regulatory claims. Whether the mill "has exceeded the standards for sulfur emissions or whether something else has caused the odor problem to worsen are open questions that may become clear after discovery."
Court: USDC Maine, Judge: Torresen, Filed On: September 12, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv305, NOS: Torts to Land - Real Property, Categories: Environment, Tort, zoning
J. Wray finds the two minutes granted to each citizen during committee meetings centered around the developer's applications for zoning permits did not violate their due process rights. New Mexico law does not impose an arbitrary number of minutes for public comment at such meetings. Additionally, while the citizens were not allowed to directly cross-examine the developer's witnesses, they were permitted to present rebuttal evidence throughout the five days of hearings, which also satisfied due process standards. Affirmed.
Court: New Mexico Court of Appeals, Judge: Wray, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: A-1-CA-40279, Categories: Government, zoning, Due Process
J. Fitzwater grants, in part, the city officials' motion for a protective order and a company's motion to compel in the company's case challenging a city's land use decisions. The balance of factors weighs in favor of applying the legislative privilege to notes pertaining to a certain plat application and in association with related meetings, and the city fails to show the discovery the company seeks is improper.
Court: USDC Northern District of Texas , Judge: Fitzwater, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 3:22cv2154, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: Civil Procedure, zoning, Discovery
[Consolidated.] J. Kethledge holds the lower court erroneously found the Catholic organization's religious discrimination claims were unripe. Its submission of two separate zoning applications to the township, and two subsequent denials, granted it standing to pursue an injunction based on unfair treatment. The prayer trail and stations of the cross put up by the organization are substantially similar to installments at other public parks and do not constitute a structure under the township's zoning laws; therefore, the organization is entitled to an injunction to allow the displays to be restored before its September 23 event. Reversed in part.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Kethledge, Filed On: September 11, 2023, Case #: 22-2139, Categories: Constitution, Government, zoning
Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Ohio finds the court of appeals property dismissed a property owner's appropriation action. The owner was required to file a direct appeal of the zoning board's denial of his request for a permit to place a houseboat on his pond prior to seeking mandamus relief to compel appropriation proceedings. Affirmed.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3115, Categories: Civil Procedure, Property, zoning
Want access to unlimited case records and advanced research tools? Create your free CasePortal account now. No credit card required to register.
Try CasePortal for Free
J. May finds the lower court properly denied a group’s petition for review. A group filed suit challenging a county resolution that zoned farmland as an Economic Revitalization Area (ERA) and granted a company a tax abatement for construction of a solar facility. Though the group has standing as the development of the facility would decrease their property values, there is no error in the zoning and declaration of the farmland as an ERA. Affirmed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: May, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 22A-PL-1738, Categories: Constitution, Tax, zoning
J. Robie finds that the trial court properly upheld a county's certification of a 848-acre multi-use development. The climate change analysis in the project's environmental impact report relied on a methodology that was never rejected by state appellate courts as alleged by an opponent of the project. The methodology the county used did not compare the project's greenhouse gas emissions with a "statewide business-as-usual goal," which the lead agency did in a case cited by the opponent. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Robie, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: C095631, Categories: Environment, zoning, Housing
J. May finds the lower court properly denied a group’s petition for review. A group filed suit challenging a county resolution that zoned farmland as an Economic Revitalization Area (ERA) and granted a company a tax abatement for construction of a solar facility. Though the group has standing as the development of the facility would decrease their property values, there is no error in the zoning and declaration of the farmland as an ERA. Affirmed.
Court: Indiana Court Of Appeals, Judge: May, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 22A-PL-1732, Categories: Construction, Tax, zoning
J. Bush finds the court in which a consent judgment is entered maintains exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute and, therefore, the property developer could not make a collateral attack on the judgment in federal court through the filing of a new lawsuit. Although the claims in the federal suit were different from those brought in the original rezoning action in state court, they would require the federal court to interpret or enforce the developer's consent judgment with the township and, therefore, the suit was barred by res judicata. Affirmed.
Court: 6th Circuit, Judge: Bush, Filed On: September 7, 2023, Case #: 22-1950, Categories: Government, zoning, Jurisdiction
J. Heidel finds that the trial court properly held that short-term rentals of accommodations within the coastal zone are not "developments" that require permits under the Coastal Act. Changes in land use density or intensity are considered developments under the Act, but requiring a permit any time the number of occupants at a residence changes is not reasonable or practical, and using a residence as a short-term rental is still a residential use and not a change in use. Affirmed.
Court: California Courts Of Appeal, Judge: Heidel, Filed On: September 5, 2023, Case #: B317485, Categories: Environment, zoning
J. Worthen finds the trial court properly denied the city’s plea to the jurisdiction in favor of the developers who had secured temporary certificates of occupancy in a building governed by an ordinance the city sought to pass precluding residential use. The developer’s pleadings support subject matter jurisdiction. The city’s contention that the developer’s claim for violation of the Open Meetings Act as unripe is without merit. Though, because the city had not acted on a permit application when the court denied its plea to the jurisdiction, its claim under local code governing permits was not ripe for disposition. Affirmed in part. Reversed in part and remanded.
Court: Texas Courts of Appeals, Judge: Worthen, Filed On: September 1, 2023, Case #: 12-22-00312-CV, Categories: Municipal Law, Property, zoning
J. Rose denies the property owner's motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling he is unlikely to succeed on his equal protection claim stemming from the city's re-zoning denial. His land, currently zoned for agriculture use, cannot be used for operation of an industrial business, which gave the city a legitimate reason to issue a cease-and-desist order. Meanwhile, the property owner has no constitutional right to operate his truck repair business on the agriculturally-zoned land; therefore, his due process claims are also likely to fail.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Rose, Filed On: August 31, 2023, Case #: 3:23cv146, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: zoning, Equal Protection, Injunction
J. Page finds that the zoning board properly denied the marijuana dispensary's request for a variance to construct a drive-through land for medical marijuana patients to pick up prescriptions. The dispensary's property has two front yards within the meaning of the zoning code, and the proposed drive-through violated code because it was not located in a side or rear yard of the property. Affirmed.
Court: Missouri Court Of Appeals, Judge: Page, Filed On: August 29, 2023, Case #: ED111005, Categories: zoning
J. Suarez finds the trial court properly granted the developer's motion for summary judgment based on evidence the housing lots were not subject to a common development plan to restrict construction of multifamily housing and had not been transferred to the current owners by a "common grantor." The original owner and subdivider of the land in question did not include any type of restrictive covenant on future developments and, therefore, the owners of single-family homes in the development cannot stop construction of a multifamily home that meets all zoning requirements. Affirmed.
Court: Connecticut Court Of Appeals, Judge: Suarez, Filed On: August 25, 2023, Case #: AC45645, Categories: Property, Real Estate, zoning
J. Tenney finds that the district court properly upheld a county council rejection of a property owner's request to build an accessory building on his ridgeline lot. The proposed structure would require site grading in addition to the completed grading that already exceeded the general plan's limit for development in the area. Also, the county council's denial was within its discretion and its decision was adequate for appellate review. Affirmed.
Court: Utah Court Of Appeals, Judge: Tenney, Filed On: August 24, 2023, Case #: 20220338-CA, Categories: Property, zoning
J. Gould reverses the intermediate court’s ruling that an airport should not build high-density housing as the amendment to a local ordinance that allows it to do so violates the uniformity rule in applying the ordinance. The airport, struggling financially in recent years, is also responsible for multiple plane accidents, some fatal. The county council has pressured the airport to sell or diversify its income to bring itself out of debt. The intermediate court is wrong because the county’s ordinance regarding population density of new housing construction does not discriminate against similarly situated properties and its exception as to the airport furthers a valid public purpose. Reversed.
Court: Supreme Court of Maryland, Judge: Gould, Filed On: August 22, 2023, Case #: C-02-CV-20-001850, Categories: Government, Property, zoning
J. Marbley grants the cell tower construction company's motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling it was not required to obtain a special use zoning permit from the township because there was evidence of a significant gap in cell service coverage that rendered it immune from local zoning laws under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Therefore, the township is enjoined from preventing completion of the cell tower during the entirety of this case.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Marbley, Filed On: August 18, 2023, Case #: 2:22cv3294, NOS: Other Statutory Actions - Other Suits, Categories: zoning, Immunity, Injunction
J. Mollway partially grants summary judgment on a religious discrimination claims by a temple that seeks a permit to operate a commercial wedding business on agriculturally zoned land. The denial of the permit fails strict scrutiny analysis as Maui Count does not show that the denial was based on any narrowly tailored law with compelling government interest.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Mollway, Filed On: August 11, 2023, Case #: 1:14cv535, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Property, zoning
Per curiam, the court of civil appeals finds that the lower court properly entered a judgment "affirming a final decision of a county board of adjustment," which overturned the issuance of a land-use certificate. The appellants are land owners that had sought the certificate to construct lodging on property "just north of an existing marina." The board had jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and its decision was "supported by the evidentiary record and the pertinent zoning ordinance." Affirmed.
Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: August 11, 2023, Case #: CL-2022-0697, Categories: Administrative Law, Real Estate, zoning
J. Athey finds the lower court improperly declared a new property line in this real estate matter. Homeowners claim their neighbors constructed a fence on their property, and complain that bamboo that the neighbor planted is growing onto their property as well, creating a nuisance. While the lower court properly determined that the bamboo from the neighbor’s yard had encroached on the homeowner’s property creating a nuisance, it did not have jurisdiction to declare a new property line. The matter is remanded for further consideration. Reversed in part.
Court: Virginia Court Of Appeals, Judge: Athey, Filed On: August 8, 2023, Case #: 0754-22-4, Categories: Real Estate, zoning, Jurisdiction
J. Lynch finds that the lower court properly dismissed a petition challenging a town's notice of violation when construction began at a vineyard without needed permits and site-plan approval. Judicial review was premature because the vineyard's owners failed to exhaust their administrative remedies first. Affirmed.
Court: New York Appellate Divisions, Judge: Lynch, Filed On: August 3, 2023, Case #: CV-22-2293, Categories: Administrative Law, zoning
J. Schreier grants the county's motion to dismiss in part in a matter arising from a dispute over an agriculturally zoned property. The property owner and property renter sought to use the property for large events including weddings, family reunions and other large social events. The owner and renter further allege that, over the course of over two years, the county threatened them with fines, injunctions and investigations. A number of claims survive because absolute prosecutorial immunity is limited to claims for money damages.
Court: USDC South Dakota, Judge: Schreier, Filed On: July 31, 2023, Case #: 4:22cv4124, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Civil Rights, Property, zoning