Land Use Planning

Front 1

Spot Zoning

Back 1

process of singling out a small parcel for a use of classification different and inconsistent with the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner and the detriment of the rights of other property owners. Violates the statutory requirement that rezoning be in accordance with a comprehensive plan.

Front 2

Reverse Spot Zoning

Back 2

all others in area are permitted to use land in such a way, but one parcel is singled out and subject to a restriction, essentially creating an island. Discriminatory against one rather than benefiting one like spot zoning does.

Front 3

Special Exception

Back 3

permitting a zoning ordinance for one parcel of land which is different from all adjacent land.

a codified permitting of a non-conforming use, decided to be permitted if there is no detriment to others, burden of persuasion on the objectors to prove via facts that such allowance will be a bigger problem than the intended use

Front 4

Conditional Use

Back 4

very similar to special exception, except heard by legislative body - in Pittsburgh, by city council- however, it is not a codified use and is often used for large projects

Front 5

Abuse of Discretion

Back 5

error of law or a finding not supported by substantial evidence

Front 6

Variance

Back 6

asked for when zoning ordinance inflicts unnecessary hardship of land owner. Must prove:

1. unique physical conditional or circumstance regarding lot size or exceptional topographical or physical conditions peculiar to property and hardship is due to such conditions.

2. b/c of conditions it is impossible that property can be developed in strict conformity with zoning ordinances and variance is necessary

3. hardship is not created by appellant

4. variance will not alter essential character of neighborhood nor permanently impair appropriate use/development of adjacent property.

5. Zoning Board Ass. must only give minimum variance that will afford relief.

Front 7

Non-conforming pre-existing use

Back 7

building was around before the comprehensive plan/ordinance established and it was legal at the time it was built, it is a constitutionally protected property right which runs with the land and is alienable; it can only be removed through eminent domain or permanent abandonment (intentionally)

Front 8

Estoppel

Back 8

amount you have put into the land and detrimentally relied on the permit, more flexible than a vested right

Front 9

Vested Right

Back 9

when you are given a permit after a complete application without fraud or misrepresentation then the government must allow your use.

Front 10

Moratorium

Back 10

a government action to suspend activity; a period of delay

Front 11

Use Variance

Back 11

a variance which seeks to use land for other than what is statutorily intended for

Front 12

Dimensional variance

Back 12

a variance request for a variance from the setbacks. Typically, less of a burden of proof of hardship than use variance.

Front 13

Public Nuisance

Back 13

Interference with publicly used property

Front 14

"A Taking" Cases

Back 14

taking is a physical invasion or regulation of land which denies economic utility of one's land by the government. No specific formula. Decisions are typically "ad hoc" - based on specific facts only.

Front 15

Penn Central v. NYC

Back 15

Not a taking because of the 3 things that constitute a potential taking:

1.economic impact on owner

2. extent to which regulation interferes w/ reasonable investment backed expectations

3. character of gov't action - (not considered to be a taking in this case as it was a reasonable government action)

Front 16

Agins v. Tiburon

Back 16

Not a taking because there was a legitimate government interest:

1. a taking if it does not advance legitimate state interests

-or-

2. economically denies the owner viable use of his land

Front 17

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan

Back 17

A per se taking because it was a physical and permanent invasion of land - cut the bundle of sticks via invasion; right to exclude and expectation of compensation.

Front 18

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

Back 18

TRILOGY CASE

Beach Front Property in California - wanted to build a new house on the land which was fine by all he ordinances

ZB - put an exaction (condition) on the building of the land which included an easement for the public to cut across the beach to a nearby park.

Taking under first prong of Agins.

--Not a legitimate state interest. There must be a clear nexus between the [condition] and the legitimate state interest as presented in the case.

Front 19

Keystone Bituminous

Back 19

Overruled PA v. Mahon Coal.

Stated that it was legitimate gov't interest under first prong of Agins. Further held that the owners of the subsidiary rights were not economically harmed as they were still allowed to get at least 50% of the coal out from under the existing structure.

Front 20

First Evangelical v. LA

Back 20

The first moratorium case. First "inverse condemnation" case. Area was in a floodplain and subject to wildfires, church had a camp there.

S.Ct. ruled under Agins that the moratorium could amount to a taking depending on the circumstances and remanded the case for determination by the lower court.

Inverse Condemnation - a taking caused by government regulation and must be paid for.

Front 21

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal

Back 21

TRILOGY CASE

S.C. dunes law was put into effect and they would not allow Lucas to build on his two parcels of land on the coast.

The court ruled that all economic benefits were permanently stripped from Lucas and this was a per se taking.

Front 22

Dolan v. Tigard

Back 22

TRILOGY CASE

Exaction case like Nollan. (Nexus test) Must be rough proportionality between the [condition] and the building itself.

Cannot expect to give up constitutional right of expectation of compensation in exchange for a discretionary benefit with little to no relationship to the property or building.

Front 23

Tahoe

Back 23

Moratorium case. Delayed on deciding how to preserve natural resources around the lake and if development was okay.

Plaintiffs wanted a Lucas per se taking, but they weren't being deprived of all their rights in that instance. Fee simple still intact and they were not afford compensation

Penn Central test applied and not Agins.

Front 24

Lingle v. Chevron

Back 24

Ct. renounced using Agins saying it was actually a due process test. But still said all cases were decided correctly.

Rough proportionality/nexus still used for the exaction [condition] cases. Determine that Penn Central is the correct test to use.

Front 25

Kelo

Back 25

NOT A TAKINGS CASE: 5th Amendment

Public purpose can stretch very far, can take from private and give to private if it is for the public purpose of benefiting the community essentially.

Public purpose is to be determined by the legislature.

Front 26

Planning Commission vs. Zoning Board

Back 26

PC - Advisory - they make the plan that goes to the Governing Body and makes a recommendation.

- Recommendation of a Planning Commission is cannot be appealed (not adjudicative action)

ZB/Governing body

- both appealable.

-Adjudicative and quasi-judicial bodies.

--QJ- appointed by city for a term certain to make decisions of law which are appealable (executive branch body with adjudicative powers)

Front 27

Pending Ordinance

Back 27

Once it is pending you must abide by it; it supplants the existing ordinance.

- Vested Right if you get in ahead of the pending ordinance

PA disregards how much you spent

Right vests when you make your application

Must have acted in good faith (reliance on a Gov't authority)

Front 28

See folder. Stopped

Back 28

before power point in list