Zoning & Planning

Subscribe to Zoning & Planning via RSS

ALI Murr Title Card

One last reminder: next Tuesday, July 25, 2017 at 2:00 pm Eastern, is “The U.S. Supreme Court and Property Rights: The ‘Larger Parcel” Issue and the Future of Regulatory Takings,” ALI-CLE’s first look at the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision on the “larger parcel” or denominator issue in regulatory takings cases where the plaintiff owns more than a single parcel, Murr v. Wisconsin.

Please come and join Sara Beachy, Michael Berger, Steven Eagle, and John Groen for lively and informative analysis and discussion. I will be introducing and moderating the panel. 

Details, including registration and CLE credit information here. Registration is $199, or, if you have attended one of our in-person Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Conferences in the past (the 2018 Conference in set for Charleston, SC, January 25-27, 2018, at the Francis Marion Hotel, stay tuned here for details shortly)…

Continue Reading ALI-CLE: The Larger Parcel Issue and the Future of Regulatory Takings (July 25, 2017)

Update 7/24/2017: Here is our contribution to the article scene.

—————————————–

Someone (I think it was Professor Ilya Somin [update: confirmed – he noted it here]) recently noted that if nothing else, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Murr v. Wisconsin will be a boon for law professors looking for something to fill up law journals. Sidebar: here’s a link to some of the commentary so far on Murr.

And not only for lawprofs, we hope. Their stuff can be useful, but we think there’s a need for those of us in the practicing Bar to contribute as well. We often complain that legal scholarship isn’t of much use to us down in the trenches, so here’s one chance to address that. Stop kvetching and start writing! I’ll do my part, and am currently underway with an article that I anticipate will make three main points:

First…

Continue Reading Murr: The Law Review Editors’ Full Employment Act

A very short one from the Connecticut Appellate Court, Santos v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. AC37281 (July 11, 2017) in a Penn Central-style takings challenge to local land use regulations. We’re going to set out the facts, then let you guess who prevailed.

The plaintiff purchased an unimproved parcel of land in Stratford at a tax sale conducted by the town in May, 2002. The prior owner had owned the property for approximately seventeen years, but had never attempted to develop the property. The town had never formally approved the property as a building lot. In noticing the sale of the property, the town included a warning that the property had not been guaranteed to be buildable under the town’s current zoning regulations. The property was sold to the plaintiff for approximately one half of its assessed value, and the prior owner made no attempt to exercise his…

Continue Reading Conn App: Because Owner Can Easily Correct The Problem With Confiscatory Regulation, His Reasonable Expectations Have Not Been Thwarted

20151204_140514

Now that the dust has settled somewhat, for your weekend reading, here are your links to some of the vast amount of commentary which the Murr v. Wisconsin decision has thus far generated:

…
Continue Reading Murr Round-Up

The Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, apparently has a problem of unregulated cemeteries. Who knew?

So it did what local government do when they think they have a problem, it passed a law. That law, Ordinance 12-12-20-001, required owners of all cemeteries, public or private, to maintain them. The ordinance also contained two troublesome provisions. First, it requires the owners of the cemeteries to keep them open to the public during the day. Second, it allows the Township’s code inspectors to enter “any property” to inspect and see if it is in compliance with the ordinance.  

Under the authority of the ordinance, a code inspector came on Knick’s property without a warrant, and told her “guess what, these stones are actually grave markers, and you better clean up this cemetery.” Knick’s response was “what cemetery? My land doesn’t have a cemetery on it.” Not buying it, the inspector wrote…

Continue Reading Night of the Living Zombie Zoning Inspectors – Ordinance Allowing Searches For Unauthorized Cemeteries “Constitutionally Suspect,” But Not Yet Justiciable

Winter storms damaged a seawall which protected a blufftop, oceanfront home. The owners, not surprisingly, wanted to rebuild the wall to protect their home. The Coastal Commission, as is its wont, saw this as an opportunity to extract some goodies from the owners. So it granted a limited-term permit to rebuild the wall, conditioned on the owners not repairing a stairway leading from the top of the bluff to the private beach:

Ultimately, the Commission approved a coastal development permit allowing seawall demolition and reconstruction, with the addition of midbluff geogrid protection below Lynch‟s home. The permit was subject to several conditions, three of which are at issue here. Special condition No. 1(a) prohibits reconstruction of the lower stairway. Special condition No. 2 provides that the seawall permit will expire in 20 years and prohibits future blufftop redevelopment from relying on the seawall as a source of geologic stability or…

Continue Reading California Supreme Court: Accept The Exaction, Or Let Your Home Fall Into The Sea – Your Choice

Here are links to the cases and materials we spoke about today during our portions of the APA’s 2017 Planning Law Review webinar:

…
Continue Reading Cases And Links From Today’s American Planning Association’s 2017 Planning Law Review

SLG-Invitation-Chair-Reception-NYC-8-11-2017

If my colleagues don’t wise up and change their minds before August, I am slated to become Chair of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law (which, by the way, includes an Eminent Domain Committee, Chaired by Howard Roston, and co-Chaired by Kelly Walsh and John Peloso). On Friday, August 11, at the ABA Annual Meeting in New York City, we’ll be having a party to celebrate, and you are invited. 

Earlier that day, our Section is producing a CLE session about the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, “Murr and Beyond: Implications for Regulatory Takings,” featuring two of the arguing counsel in the case (John Groen (PLF), and Misha Tseytlin (Wisconsin SG), and commentary from me and Nancy Stroud (FL). Judge (ret.) Peter Buschbaum (NJ) is moderating. We’ll not only try and figure out what the majority did in Murr,…

Continue Reading Friday, Aug 11, 2017, New York City: Chair-Elect Reception, Unpacking Murr – ABA State & Local Govt Law Section