Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
AICP Key Law Cases
Flashcards that review important planning and land use cases
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Rational Nexus Test | There must be a proportionality b/w the amount charged to the developer and the type and amount of facilities demand generated by the development. Must be reasonable connection b/w the use of the fees and the benefits produced for the new development. |
| Nexus | The condition has a required degree of connection. |
| Welch v. Swasey (1909) | (Zoning Case) First clear-cut nationwide authority for communities to regulate development of private property through limitation of building heights, and to vary these heights by zone. |
| Eubank v. City of Richmond (1912) | (Zoning Case) Court declared setback legislation was constitutional. Was a Supreme Court Case. |
| Hadacheck v. Sebastian (1915) | (Zoning Case) Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance banning a brickyard and kiln because it was considered a public nuisance. Provided that restriction of future profitable uses was not a taking of property without just compensation. Supreme Court Case. |
| Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926) | (Zoning AND Takings Case) Court upheld zoning as constitutional, as being w/in police power b/c it was used to protect public welfare. If zoning was considered reasonable, then it would be upheld. Supreme Court Case. |
| Nectow v. City of Cambridge (1928) | (Zoning Case) Plaintiff was placed in R-3 zoning district in error. Plaintiff sued under 14th Amendment claiming violation of due process. Supreme Court Case |
| Rational Basis Test | Courts will uphold a law if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public). |
| Moore v. East Cleveland | (Zoning Case) Courts determined that cities cannot define "family" so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other. |
| Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo, NY (1972) | (Growth Mgmt Case) Court upheld growth mgmt strategy that allotted a point system based on availability of infrastructure. 1st case that allowed Local gov'ts to regulate urban growth (subdivision regs). Performance Standards upheld. |
| Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma (1975) | (Growth Mgmt Case) Communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year if reasonable. US Court of Appeals |
| Association Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore, CA (1976) | (Growth Mgmt Case) Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits. Court allowed for time phasing in future residential growth until performance conditions were met. |
| Town of Windsor v. Whitney (1920) | (Growth Mgmt Case) Made land subdivision regulations possible by holding that dedication of streets as a prerequisite to platting was possible. |
| Massachusetts v. EPA (2006) | (Challenge to Clean Water and Clean Air Acts) EPA must prove why they are not regulating greenhouse gases. US Supreme Court |
| Rapanos v. U.S. (2006) | (Challenge to Clean Water and Clean Air Acts) Army Corp of Engineers must determine the relationship b/w a wetland and a navigable waterway. US Supreme Court |
| Young v. American Mini Theaters (1976) | (1st Amendment Case) Court upheld that zoning ordinances could be used to restrict the placement of adult movie theaters. Still allowed AMT to be located in certain areas of Detroit, so not violating free speech. US Supreme Court |
| Metromedia v. City of San Diego (1981) | (1st Amendment Case) Court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs b/c it effectively banned non-commercial signs. US Supreme Court |
| Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984) | (1st Amendment Case) Regulation of signs was valid as long as it didn't regulate content. Must be significant proof of gov't interest if regulated. Upheld an LA ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles.US Supreme Court |
| City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres (1986) | (1st Amendment Case) Court upheld separation/concentration requirements for adult uses where a substantial gov't interest exists. City does not have to guarantee available land but cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment. US Supreme Court |
| Religious Land Use and Institutional Person Act 2000 | No government may implement land use regulation that imposes burden on the religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of burden furthers government interest and is the least restrictive means. |
| US v. Gettysburg Electric RR (1896) | (5th Amendment Case) Dealt with historic preservation. Ruled that acquisition of the battlefield at Gettysburg was for a valid purpose. US Supreme Court |
| Penn Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) | (5th Amendment and Takings Case) Court said that the state law saying that a company could not mine coal if it might damage structures on the surface "went to far" and was a taking of the coal. DMV clause. 1st takings ruling. US Supreme Court |
| Berman v. Parker (1954) | (5th Amendment Case) Found that aesthetics was a valid public purpose. Court upheld redevelopment programs that took property in eminent domain and resold the property to private developers for redevelopment (urban renewal). US Supreme Court |
| Fred French Investing Co. v. NYC (1976) | (5th Amendment Case) Court ruled that the transfer of development rights, while a legitimate planning tool, did not provide sufficient compensation for rendering property unsuitable for any reasonable productive use. US Supreme Court |
| Penn Central v. NYC (1978) | (5th Amendment and Takings Case) NYC Landmark Preservation Law applied to Grand Central Terminal was NOT a taking. Penn Central wanted to expand but NYC wanted to preserve the building. Historic Preservation. US Supreme Court |
| Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980) | (5th Amendment and Takings Case) Upheld a zoning ordinance in California city that regulated a zone at low-density to enforce open space requirements was NOT a taking as it advanced legit state interest. Provided 2 prong test. US Supreme Court |
| Agins two prong test | 1. Regulations must substantially advance a legitimate state interest. 2. An owner may not be denied economically valuable use of his or her land. |
| Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. (1982) | (5th Amendment and Takings Case) Found that the cable company who installed cables on a building to serve that building and others was considered a taking because the cable company occupied the land without compensation. US Supreme Court |
| First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of LA (1987) | (5th Amendment and Takings Case) Court ruled that a regulation that temporarily prohibited the church from building in a flood hazard area was a taking, thus compensation was due. US Supreme Court |
| Keystone Coal v. DeBenedictis (1987) | (5th Amendment and Takings Case) Regulation to not allow coal co. to mine coal under properties was not a taking b/c it was for public interest. Affirmed Agins Test #1. US Supreme Court |
| FCC v. Florida Power (1987) | (5th Amendment Case) Found that the FCC regulations for rent charged by utilities to cable operators for use of utility poles was not considered a taking. US Supreme Court |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) | (5th Amendment and Takings Case) Court found forcing beachfront property owner to provide a public easement as a condition for building a house was considered a taking. Expanded Agins Test #1 - Nexus b/w taking and state's interest. US Supreme Court |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) | (5th Amendment and Takings Case) The purchase of property was before regulations were set prohibiting development due to nuisance. Considered a taking b/c owner lost all monetary value of property. Expanded Agins Test #2. US Supreme Court |
| Dolan v. Tigard (1994) | (5th Amendment and Takings Case) Court found city not guilty of taking for requiring business to use part of property for a bike trail as condition to expand. Rational nexus test. US Supreme Court |
| Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning (1997) | (5th Amendment Case) Owner of property claimed a taking had occurred b/c Planning Agency forbid development of vacant lots. he was allowed to sell for TDR but sued instead. US Supreme Court |
| City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes (1999) | (5th Amendment Case) Awarded a beach front developer $1.5 million for being deprived of all economic use of the land as the developer was continuously being denied a builder permit even though it conformed to zoning and comp plan. US Supreme Court |
| Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001) | (5th Amendment Case) Owner was denied the opportunity to fill in his wetlands to build beach club. Court ruled this not a taking. US Supreme Court |
| Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning (2002) | (5th Amendment Case) Found that a moratorium on development isn't always a taking, as in this case where the Planning Council held up development till a comp plan was finished. US Supreme Court |
| Lingle v. Chevron (2005) | (5th Amendment Case) Examined Hawaii's practice of limiting rent payment amounts oil companies charged dealers in exchange for service station leases. Court overturned Agins Test #1. US Supreme Court |
| Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams (2005) | (5th Amendment Case) The licensed radio operator could not seek damages when is conditional use permit was denied. It would have distorted the Telecommunications Act (1996). US Supreme Court |
| Kelo v. City of New London (2005) | (5th Amendment Case) Eminent domain was ruled to be a valid part of economic development and that the "fairness" of eminent domain would be determined by planning documents such as the City's Economic Development Plan. US Supreme Court |
| Munn v. Illinois (1876) | (14th Amendment Case) Landmark decision where the court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses is in the public interest. Does not violate due process when it is in the public interest. US Supreme Court |
| Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas (1974) | (14th Amendment Case) Found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values through zoning. Court upheld zoning that prohibited more than 2 unrelated ind. from living as family. US Supreme Court |
| Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Housing Development Corp (1977) | (14th Amendment Case) Supreme Court reversed decision that a Village's refusal to rezone property from single-family to multi-family was racially motivated. Not enough evidence. |
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel (1975) | (14th Amendment Case) Landmark housing case. Township could not create exclusionary zoning. There needed to be more affordable housing. |
| City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) | (14th Amendment Case) Challenged Religion Freedom Restoration Act. City prohibited church in historic district from expanding but was found to have exceeded its enforcement powers. US Supreme Court |
Created by:
bdporter04