LAND USE FALL Class meetings: Mon. & Wed., 6:15pm 7:30pm Classroom: AL 407

Transcription

1 PROF. AUDREY G. MCFARLANE Office: # AL Room 1007 amcfarlane@ubalt.edu (410) Admin. Asst.: Laurie Schnitzer lschnitzer@ubalt.edu (410) ; Office: AL Room 1108 Class meetings: Mon. & Wed., 6:15pm 7:30pm Classroom: AL 407 Office hours: Mon. & Wed. 4:30pm-5:30pm; or after class or for an appointment Course Website: COURSE WEB SITE: for Course Syllabus, Web Handouts (required supplemental reading) and Web Discussion. Please register for the TWEN Land Use course website using the address that you check the most frequently. BOOKS Required: ROBERT C. ELLICKSON, VICKI L. BEEN, RODERICK M. HILLS, CHRISTOPHER SERKIN, LAND USE CONTROLS: CASES AND MATERIALS (4TH ED. 2014) (Main Text) Recommended Treatise: DANIEL R. MANDELKER, LAND USE LAW (5TH ED., 2005-DATE) available on reserve in the library. COURSE REQUIREMENTS Grades will be based on a 3 hour, open book, final examination (70%) and class participation (30%) (defined as: attendance, class discussion, individual project): 1. Attendance. Final grades may be lowered for habitual unpreparedness or lateness. In accordance with ABA rules and UB policy, if you miss more than 5 classes you will not be allowed to sit for the final exam. 2. Class Discussion. If you attend class and participate in discussions by volunteering or answering questions you will have met the class participation requirement. You may also earn up to 3 points to be added to your final examination score through virtual class discussion: by posting a substantive comment or observation on the course web page discussion page (1 point per substantive comment or reply). 3. Individual Hearing Project. You must a) attend a land use public hearing in a city or county of your choice, b) find the actual parcel that was under consideration at the hearing, c) photograph the parcel yourself, and d) write a learned, 3-5 page report about the dispute or matter that was considered. The report MUST include the following elements: i) a description of the actual hearing and issue presented, ii) your independent research on the relevant statutory or case law pertaining to the matter; and iii) an analysis of whether and how the matter illustrates issues, themes or matters covered by the course; iv) 1-3 (maximum) photograph(s). The photographs and reports will be submitted through the TWEN Assignment Drop Box and, time permitting, discussed in class. Please refer to the Web Handout entitled: Land Use In Action: Individual Land Use Project Instructions for further details about requirements for the report. The report will be graded based on the quality of your independent research efforts and the written report and will be worth up to 27 points of your final grade. Due Dates (TWEN Drop Box): 1) Wednesday, September 5, 2014: Land Use Hearing you propose to attend; 2) Friday, November, 7, 2014: Final Land Use Hearing Report is due. Page 1 of 8

2 REQUIRED READING August 18, Introduction to the Regulation of Land Use: Private Property, Local Government and the Community- pp. 1-14; 23-26; pp (top) 41-57; Web Handout a. ANDREW F. POPPER, PATRICIA E. SALKIN, DAVID AVITABILE, A COMPANION TO BORDERING ON MADNESS: AN AMERICAN LAND USE TALE, 4-12 (2d. ed. 2008) (Web b. TIMOTHY BEATLEY, ETHCIAL LAND USE: PRINCIPLES OF POLICY AND PLANNING, 3-4, (1994) (Web August 20, The Underpinnings of Zoning: a. Land Use in the Absence of Zoning Nuisance and non-zoning approaches to land use 639(bottom)- 641(top); ; i. Bernard Siegan, Non-Zoning in Houston, p.643 What are the pros and cons of adopting Houston s approach to land management. Is there is a difference between who is advantaged and disadvantaged by zoning? ii. Virginia Postrel, A Tale of Two Town Houses: Real estate may be as important as religion in explaining the infamous gap between red and blue states, ATLANTIC MONTHLY (November 2007) (Web b. Replacing the Common Law with Statutory Regulation (Zoning): pp (top) Two questions to consider: i. Should the Supreme Court have ruled in favor of the intrusion into private property rights through zoning? ii. How was it possible for Ambler Realty Co. to lose and, just two years later, for Nectow to win? Was it better facts? Different court composition? or something about the constitutional challenge raised in each case? 1. Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) 2. Ambler Realty Co. v. Village of Euclid, 297 F. 307 (N.D. Ohio 1924) (Web 3. Nectow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183 (1928) August 25, How a Zoning Case Gets to State Court - Web Handouts a. Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (please read notes & answer questions) (Web b. 222 East Chestnut Street Corp. v. Bd. of Appeals, 152 N.E.2d 465 (Ill. 1956) (Web c. Ben Lomond, Inc. v. Municipality of Anchorage, 761 P.2d 119 (Alaska 1988) (Web d. Ray v. Baltimore, 430 Md. 74, 36 A.3d 521 (2014) (Web e. Daniel R. Mandelker, A Preliminary Note on Remedies in Land Use Cases (Web f. Willow Neighborhood Assn. Problem (Web (please be prepared to discuss) August 27, Constraints on Zoning Regulations: Types of Legal Challenges to Zoning Regulations & Standards of Review a. Substantive Due Process, Reasonableness and Cost/Benefit Analysis, pp i. Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates, 844 F.2d 461 (7 th Cir. 1988) iii. Twigg v. County of Will, 627 N.E.2d 742 (Ill. Ct. 1994) p.104 iv. Cormier v. County of San Luis Obispo, 207 Cal. Rptr. 880 (Ct. App. 1984) Page 2 of 8

3 September 3, 2014 b. Other Constraints on Zoning Regulations: pp (top); i. Sprenger, Grubb & Associates Inc. v. City of Hailey, 903 P.2d 741 (Idaho 1995) ii. Island Silver & Spice, Inc. v. Islamorada, 542 F.3d 844 (11 th Cir. 2008) iii. Layne v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 460 a.2d 1088 (Pa. 1983) iv. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562 (2000) September 8, Nonconforming Uses and Vested Rights, Web Handout; p a. Please look for a nonconforming use in your town - does it blend with or contradict the neighborhood. Should the use be phased out? i. Village of Valatie v. Smith, 632 N.E.2d 1264 (N.Y. 1994) ii. Balt. City Planning Dept, Public Health, Crime and Liquor Stores (Web (Web iii. Zoning for a Healthy Baltimore (Web iv. Prince George s County v. Sunrise Development Ltd. Partnership, 623 A.2d 1296 (Md. 1993) (Web v. Valley View Industrial Park v. City of Redmond, 733 P.2d 182 (Wash. 1987) (en banc) vi. Note on Vested Rights September 10, Zoning Administration pp a. Regulatory Flexibility Device Built into the Zoning Code, Part I: Variances pp ; Web Handout; p i. Proceedings before Planning & Zoning Board of the City of San Cibola (Web Handout please be prepared to discuss any procedural and/or substantive problems in the scenario presented). ii. Matthew v. Smith, 707 S.W.2d 411 (Mo. 1986) iii. Richard Roeser Professional Builder, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County, 793 A.2d 545 (Md 2002) (Web iv. Korean Buddhist Dae Won Sa Temple of Hawaii v. Sullivan, 953 P.2d 1315 (Haw. 1998) Page 3 of 8

4 September 15, 2014 b. Regulatory Flexibility Device Built into the Zoning Code, Part II: Special Exceptions (Conditional Uses) - pp ; Web Handout i. Gail Easley, Conditional Uses: Using Discretion, Hoping for Certainty, Amer. Planning. Assoc. Zoning Practice (May 2006) (web handout) ii. Gladden v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 659 A.2d 249 (D.C. 1995) p. 296 iii. Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County v. Southland Corp., 297 S.E.2d 718 (Va. 1982) (Web iv. Alviani v. Dixon, 775 A.2d 1234 (Md. 2001) (Web v. Ultra Vires Limits on Conditions Imposed by Administrative Agencies c. Doctrines Utilized by Courts to Impose Constraints on Zoning Changes ; Web Handout i. Spot Zoning 1. Kuehne v. Town Council of East Hartford, 72 A.2d 474 (Ct. 1950) (Web 2. Griswold v. City of Homer, 925 P.2d 1015 (Alaska 1996) p. 309 September 17, 2014 c. Doctrines.Constraints on Zoning Changes, cont d ii. The Change-Mistake Approach, pp ; Web Handouts 1. White v. Spring, 109 Md.App. 692, 675 A.2d 1023 (1996) (Web 2. Chevy Chase Village v. Montgomery County Council, 258 Md. 27, 264 A.2d 861 (1970) (Web 3. Bowman Group v. Moser, 112 Md.App. 694, 686 A.2d 643 (1996) (Web iii. Quasi-Judicial v. Legislative Rezoning pp Snyder v. Board of County Commissioners, 595 So. 2d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991), quashed, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993) 2. Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So.2d 469 (Fla. 1993) p.346 September 22, 2014 d. Doctrines.Constraints on Zoning Changes, cont d iv. Contract or Conditional Zoning, pp (top) 1. Collard v. Incorporated Village of Flower Hill, 421 N.E.2d 818 (NY 1981) (Web 2. Chrismon v. Guilford County, 370 S.E.2d 579 (N.C. 1988) p Note on Cluster Zoning and Planned Unit Development, p Coscan Washington, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park & Planning Comm n, 590 A.2d 1080 (Md. App. 1991) (Web 5. Mayor and Council of Rockville v. Rylyns Enterprises, Inc., 814 A.2d 469 (2002) (Web Page 4 of 8

5 September 24, 2014 e. Regulatory Flexibility Device Built into the Zoning Code, Part III: Incentive Zoning - pp (top); Web Handouts v. Municipal Art Society v. City of New York, 522 N.Y.S.2d 800 (N.Y. Sup.Ct. 1987) (Web vi. Lisa Forderaro, Privately Owned Park, Open to the Public, May Make Its Own Rules, NY TIMES, A26 (October 14, 2011) (web handout) vii. JEROLD S. KAYDEN, Occupying Wall Street at the public-private frontier, The Architects Newspaper (October 12, 2011) (web handout) September 29, 2014 Constraints on Zoning Changes, cont d f. Consistency? : Zoning Without, or in Conflict with the Comprehensive Plan - pp (top) viii. Haines v. City of Phoenix, 727 P.2d 339 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986) p.337 ix. Trail v. Terrapin Run, LLC, 403 Md. 523; 943 A.2d 1192 (2008) (an edited version of this case is in Web Handouts) x. Baltimore County Master Plan 2020 (web handout) xi. Baltimore City Comprehensive Plan 2007/2014 (web handout) 1. should the comprehensive plans have the force of law, i.e. be legally binding on future development? Why or why not? 2. should comprehensive planning be mandated by the state? the federal government? Or is the principle of local control important enough that the matter should it be left up to each locality to decide? October 1, Constraints on Land Use Decisions by Neighbors Neighbors Consent Requirements; Initiatives & Referenda pp a. City of Chicago v. Stratton, 44 N.E. 853 (Ill. 1896) b. Cary v. City of Rapid City, 559 N.W.2d 891(S.D. 1997) c. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation v City of Cuyahoga Falls, 697 N.E.2d 181 (Ohio 1998) October 6, Private Property, Eminent Domain & The Public Interest, pp ; a. The Power to Take i. Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) (Web ii. Kelo v. New London, 125 S.Ct (2005) iii. Norwood v. Horney, 853 N.E.2d 1115 (Ohio 2006) iv. Goldstein v. New York State Urban Development Corp., 921 N.E.2d 164 (2009) v. Hellman, How They Assembled the Most Expensive Block in New York s History vi. Please be prepared to specifically discuss whether Kelo is an expansion or restriction on the rule announced in Berman v. Parker. Support your perspective with specific language from each case. Page 5 of 8

6 October 8, 2014 b. Just Compensation - pp i. O Donnell v. State, 370 A.2d 233 (R.I. 1977) p.855 ii. State v. Caoili, 639 A.2d 275 (NJ 1994) p Regulatory Takings a. Early Interpretations - pp (top) i. Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887) p.136 ii. Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) p. 140 October 13, 2014 b. The Ad Hoc Balancing Test - p i. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) p. 158 c. Per Se Takings Categorical Rules ; Web Handout i. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (Web ii. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S (1992) p.169 October 15, 2014 a. Tensions Between Balancing and Per Se Rules - pp ; i. Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) (p.180) ii. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 US 304 (1987) iii. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 553 U.S. iv. 302 (2002) (p. 185) Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 125 S.Ct (2005) (p.193) October 20, Constraints on Zoning Measures That Threaten Civil Liberties b. Freedom of Religion - Web Handout; pp i. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (Web ii. International Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 634 F.3d 1037 (2011) October 22, 2014 c. Freedom of Speech pp i. Alexander Reichl, Fear and Lusting in Las Vegas & NYC: Political Economy & Public Space (Web ii. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41 (1986) iii. City of Los Angeles, v. Alameda Books, Inc., 122 S.Ct (2002) iv. Pack Shack v. Howard County, 832 A.2d 170 (Md. 2003) (Web October 27, Aesthetic Regulation (What is beauty?) -- pp (top); d. Building Design and Historic Preservation i. Anderson v. City of Issaquah, 851 P.2d 744 (Wash. Ct. App. 1993) ii. State by Powderly v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 84 (Minn. 1979) iii. Rector of St. Bartholomew s Church v. City of New York, 914 F.2d 348 (2d Cir. 1990) iv. A-S-P Associates v. City of Raleigh, 258 S.E.2d 444 (N.C. 1979) Page 6 of 8

7 October 29, Land Use & Exclusion: Confronting The Matter of Social Equity and Land Use Regulation?-- pp ; Web Handout; p a. From Racial Zoning to Exclusionary Zoning i. Baltimore Adopts Segregation Ordinance, New York Times, Nov (Web ii. Christopher Silver, The Racial Origin of Zoning in American Cities (Web iii. Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. [Arlington Heights I] iv. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights [Arlington Heights II], 558 F.2d 1283 (7 th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S (1978) v. Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir. 1988) (Web vi. Handout United States ex rel. Antidiscrimination Center of Metro New York, Inc. v. Westchester County, 668 F. Supp. 2d 548 (SDNY 2009) November 3, 2014 b. Exclusionary Zoning to Inclusionary Zoning? pp. ; i. Mount Laurel (District Court Statement of Facts) (Web ii. Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel [Mount Laurel I], 336 A.2d 713 (N.J.), appeal dismissed and cert. denied, 423 U.S. 808 (1975) iii. Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel [Mount Laurel II], 456 A.2d 390 (N.J. 1983) iv. Hills Development Co. v. Bernards Township, 510 A.2d 621 (NJ 1986) v. Chris Phillips, Joe de la Fuente, The Federal Fair Housing Act and Municipal Zoning vi. Regulation: New Developments That May Affect New Developments (Web Report: Montgomery County Moderately Priced Dwelling Unit (MPDU) Program (Web November 5, Unconventional Households & Single-Family Residential Use: The Non-Traditional Family -- pp ; Web Handout e. Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) f. Moore v. City of East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) g. Kirsch v. Prince George s County, 626 A.2d 372 (Md. 1993) (Web a. People with Disabilities - pp i. City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) p.717 ii. Smith & Lee Associates v. City of Taylor, 102 F.3d 781 (6 th Cir. 1996) p. 722 November 10, Growth, Impact and Development a. Growth Management Control Strategies - pp i. Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore, 557 P.2d 473 (moratoria) ii. Golden v. Ramapo Planning Board, 285 N.E.2d 291 (N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 409 U.S (1972) iii. Maryland Smart Growth (Web Page 7 of 8

8 November 12, Subdivision Regulations and Impact Fees a. Subdivision Regulation - pp ; i. Miles v. Planning Board of Millbury, 536 N.E.2d 328 (Mass. 1989) p.418 ii. Note on Subdivision Standards, Street Layouts and New Urbanism, p. 420 November 17, 2014 b. Dedications, Exactions & Impact Fees pp ; (top); 713(bottom)- 718 i. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) ii. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) iii. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmnt. District, 133 S.Ct (2013) November 19, 2014; Class Discussion of Land Use Hearing Reports; November 24, 2014 Review Page 8 of 8