Final Exam Flashcards
In re Jacobs (1885)
Nuisance & Rationality of Laws
Facts: Tobacco production in tenements outlawed (racial bias undertones).
Rationale: Invalidate Law. Overreach of Police Power (Broad, but LIMITED).
-Court investigates the underlying public purpose (no aimed at health, unreasonable, and no per-se nuisance).
Sic Utere (tuo ut alienum non laedas)
Basis of Nuisance Law
Use of One’s Land Cannot Harm Another (General Welfare Considerations)
Gilbert v. Showerman (1871 Michigan)
Facts: Mixed-Use residential neighborhood becomes increasingly industrialized. Retail/Residence shop is bothered by local mill. No complaint until later.
Rationale: No Infringement or Injunction - Area must be free to develop/grow (not ossify uses).
- Annoyance was clear, but insufficient.
- Early judicial LUP device.
Primitive Land Use Planning
Judicial Regulation by Nuisance
5 Cases
- In re Jacobs (Police Power Overreach for Tobacco in Tenements Regulation - Unreasonable, Irrational)
- Gilbert v. Showerman (Retail/Residential, No Nuisance in Changing City of Detroit)
- Hadacheck v. Sebestian (Lawful Brickyard Business = Regulated (as a Nuisance))
- Village of Euclid (Preemptive Nuisance, Pig in the Parlor Problem - Legislative Action of Zoning = Upheld)
- Nectow v. City of Cambridge (Judicial Review for Rezoning, Suspicious of Quasi-Judicial Zoning)
Consistency Doctrine
3 Aspects & 3 Cases
- Udell: (Rezoning of proposed bowling alley = irrational (Inconsistent with Plan). Plan “found” in multiple documents, including the zoning ordinance, zoning map, history, etc.
- Fasano: Zoning Board did not prove Consistency with Plan in Trailer-Park Zone Change (Udell Progression on Locating Plan)
- Snyder: Formal Comp. Plan (Attempts to Build Condo Units) - Mere Consistency with Plan =/= Sufficient. Must NOT Be INCONSISTENT, too. Time Dimension
Modifying Existing Zoning
3 Methods & Type of Action (Quasi-Judicial vs. Legislative)
1 Case as Example
- Variance (Quasi-Judicial)
- Special Use Permit (Quasi-Judicial)
- Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (Presumptively Legislative, Potentially Quasi-Judicial)
Fasano: Quasi-Judicial, NOT Legislative (Despite Ordinance Change) - SFR to Planned Residential for Trailor Park - Judicial Act, Specific Property
Consistency Doctrine
4 Aspects
- Zoning Enabling Act’s requirement that zoning be in conformity (CONSISTENT) with a Comprehensive Plan.
- Comprehensive Plan & “Consistency” = Potentially Ambiguous, Amorphous: Udell (Bowling Alley, Informal Plan) to Snyder (Condo, Formal Plan)
- Use Must Not be INCONSISTENT with Plan (& Consistent, too).
- “Spot” Zoning = Inappropriate (Inconsistent with Plan)
Baxendale (New Jersey 1955)
2 Doctrines Implicated
General Facts/Dissent
Motel Prohibition Upheld (Consistency Doctrine & Deference/Fairly Debatable Standard)
- Ordinance does not need to foresee every conceivable use.
- Reasonable Basis to Exclude (Fairly Debatable) based on certain differences (e.g., traffic, noise, etc.)
Dissent rejects motel discrimination (lawful business).
Manalapan v. Township 4 Points (Facts & Rationale)
Home Depot/Big Box Stores Regulation
- Master Plan in Development, followed by Big Box Ban
- City can respond to public concerns; fluid/flexible process.
- No Vested Rights
- Ultimate Ordinance = SUBSTANTIALLY Consistent
Goffinet (& NapGas Co.) v. County of Christian (Illinois 1976)
Agricultural Area Rezoned to Industrial =/= Conditional OR Spot Zoning
QUINTESSENTIAL SPECIAL USE CASE (Rezoning Used Here)
-Relies on Plan to show need for manufacturing jobs (future).
-No adverse effects on surrounding lands.
-No Spot Zoning (Consistent with Plan).
-Judicial Process Requirements…
Non-Conforming Uses
Justification, Nature, Expiration
- Premised on Takings Considerations
- NCUs =/= Expandable (but Transferable)
- Upon Abanondment of NCU, NCU = NCU Lost (Non-Renewable)
Golden v. Board of Ramapo
2 Features
Phased/Controlled Growth Case Upheld
- Developer could pay for connections in advance or wait until town expanded to region.
- No Denial of Right to Develop, but Controls/Conditions Development
Zoning Estoppel vs. Vested Rights
Definitional Distinction
Estoppel: Focused on Actions of Zoning Authority
Rights: Focused on Developer, Reliance Based
Limitations on Zoning, Estoppel, and Vested Rights
- No Guarantee to Zoning Classification
- No Protection UNTIL Last Discretionary Act (Building Permit = Sufficient, Not Necessary –> Similar Action = Possible Protection – Avco)
General Overview
Takings Analysis (Lingle)
2 Forms & 3 Subdivisions & Exception
Ouster or Appropriation
- Ouster = Taking
- Total Deprivation = Taking
- Penn Central Balancing
Exception: Exactions (Nollan & Dolan)