16 results for 'cat:"Government" AND cat:"Zoning"'.
J. Mollway taxes a religious organization $18,568 in its decadelong dispute with Maui over its construction of a church. The taxable costs are proper because the county attempted to meet and confer with the church, despite the church’s refusal. The costs properly encompass fees for witnesses, trial exhibits and depositions.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Mollway, Filed On: March 8, 2024, Case #: 1:14cv535, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, Tax, zoning
J. Schutz finds the Colorado Noise Abatement Act does not preempt local governments from issuing amplified noise permits and so the lower court properly granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the city and bar. The Act does not limit the issue of such permits to events hosted by municipalities or nonprofit entities and, therefore, allows private businesses to obtain exemptions from noise pollution standards. Affirmed.
Court: Colorado Court Of Appeals, Judge: Schutz, Filed On: March 7, 2024, Case #: 2024COA25, Categories: government, Preemption, zoning
J. Tookey finds the trial court properly concluded that petitions for judicial review of the 2019 Order had become moot. “The 2019 Order was remanded to OAB by LUBA, and by operation of LUBA’s remand, it had become ineffective.” Affirmed.
Court: Oregon Court of Appeals, Judge: Tookey, Filed On: March 6, 2024, Case #: A179634, Categories: government, zoning
J. Bell partially grants a group of short-term rental property owners their motion to remand this case to state court; they sued a county for allegedly violating of state and federal zoning laws. The group maintains that the county instituted an ordinance prescribing how the properties are used as a form of unfairly condemning the properties. The group’s state law claims will be remanded, but its federal claims will proceed, as the parties were unable to voluntarily resolve their dispute.
Court: USDC Western District of North Carolina, Judge: Bell, Filed On: February 26, 2024, Case #: 5:24cv3, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, Property, zoning
J. Mollway rules on several motions in limine in a lawsuit over the state reverting a property from urban to agricultural use and preventing a developer from using it. For example, several motions related to evidence of the developer’s contractual damages are granted as they are irrelevant to its taking claims. Motions and evidence that remains include information about the reverting order and testimony about the property value.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Mollway, Filed On: February 6, 2024, Case #: 1:17cv113, NOS: All Other Real Property - Real Property, Categories: government, 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. Ginoza finds the lower court properly dismissed most of a Hawaii community group’s allegations against the development of a large sports complex, but should not have dismissed others to the extent that they adequately challenged the validity of a special use permit. The community group did not exhaust administrative remedies for the approval for the permit, so the court lacks jurisdiction over a majority of the counts. Regarding counts challenging the project’s environmental impact, insofar as the claims seek relief other than invalidating the permit, they should not have been dismissed because they reasonably question if the supplemental impact statement suffices as an environmental impact statement. Affirmed in part.
Court: Hawai'i Court Of Appeals, Judge: Ginoza, Filed On: December 28, 2023, Case #: CAAP-16-444, Categories: Environment, government, zoning
J. Watson finds in favor of the alliance in its case against Honolulu challenging an amendment to an ordinance to increase the minimum rental period for a non-resort property from 30 to 90 days, which effectively outlaws rentals of 89 days or less. The ordinance violates a state zoning law restricting counties from passing zoning ordinances that conflict with prior lawful uses. The resulting permanent injunction enjoins the City and County of Honolulu from enforcing the ordinance insofar as it prohibits 30-89 day home rentals in any district on O'ahu.
Court: USDC Hawaii, Judge: Watson, Filed On: December 21, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv247, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, Property, zoning
J. Morrison grants, in part, the township's motion to dismiss, ruling it is not required under Ohio law to approve every zoning application that meets certain requirements found in its comprehensive plan. Therefore, the landowners have no protected property interest in the re-zoning application and their due process claims fail as a matter of law.
Court: USDC Southern District of Ohio, Judge: Morrison, Filed On: November 17, 2023, Case #: 2:23cv691, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: government, zoning, Due Process
J. Talwani grants in part a mayor’s motion for judgment on the pleadings of a couple unhappy with their parking variance being revoked and with the placement of parking meters in front of their home. The couple’s claims related to the variance being revoked are barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity but their claims related to the placement of the meters are not barred by the fact that a city official placed them as part of their official duty, because there is a question of whether they could have been and should have been placed elsewhere by the city official.
Court: USDC Massachusetts, Judge: Talwani, Filed On: October 20, 2023, Case #: 1:22cv11462, NOS: Other Civil Rights - Civil Rights, Categories: Administrative Law, government, zoning
Per curiam, the Supreme Court of Ohio finds the individuals are entitled to a writ of mandamus to place the annexation referendum on the November 2023 ballot. Even if circulators conflated zoning and annexation issues in flyers distributed among voters, these misrepresentations do not allow removal of the issue from the ballot, but can only result in fines against the circulators.
Court: Ohio Supreme Court, Judge: Per curiam, Filed On: October 7, 2023, Case #: 2023-Ohio-3664, Categories: Elections, government, 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
[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
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. 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. Atkins finds that the trial court should not have determined the city council acted arbitrarily and capriciously in its denial of a developer's request for a zoning map amendment. Under Louisiana jurisprudence, since the city council's vote constituted a zoning decision by a legislative body, it is presumed to be valid unless the developer can demonstrate that the decision was arbitrary. In this case, there were only two public comments in favor of the zoning amendment request, one being from a member of the developer's corporation. The rest of the public comments were against the zoning request, citing concerns of property values and showing that the developer bought the land knowing that it was not zoned to be fully commercial. Further, there were concerns regarding removing affordable housing for low-income residents, additional commercial activity keeping their children up at night, and that the zoning change would affect the culture and historic background of the neighborhood. Reversed.
Court: Louisiana Court Of Appeal, Judge: Atkins, Filed On: June 22, 2023, Case #: 2022-CA-0813, Categories: Evidence, government, zoning