Environmental Regulation

1
Environmental Regulation
Property
Prof. David Glazier April 12, 2007
2
Todays Class

• Zoning Overview Refresher
• Spot Zoning
• State v. City of Rochester Minnesota
• Environmental Regulation
• Palazzolo v. Rhode Island
• Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council
• Course Wrap-up Scheduling

3
Zoning Overview

• Exercise of state police power, requiring
• Statutory delegation to localities
• Comprehensive zoning plan development
• Zoning ordinance legislatively enacted after
  public hearings
• Zoning enacted in accordance with these rules is
  presumptively valid

4
Euclidean Zoning
Single Family Homes
Duplex Homes
Multi-family Apartments
Commercial use/Schools/Churches
Light Industry
Heavy Industry
5
Spot zoning

• Single parcel rezoned for more intensive use
• Benefits property owner vice public
• Similar property nearby not rezoned
• Rezoning incompatible with comprehensive plan

Spot zoning presumptively invalid
6
What else could it be?
7
Pre-existing (Non-conforming) Uses

• - Non-conforming uses may continue unless
  detrimental to public welfare, safety, or health
• - Owner may make necessary additions needed
  for natural expansion of use
• - Non-conforming use is alienable
• - May be terminated only
• -- if a nuisance
• -- abandoned
• -- taken by eminent domain
• -- discontinued for set time
• -- destroyed

For sale 254,000
8
Special Exception

• Use contrary to basic zoning but conditionally
  authorized by zoning ordinance
• - Legislative body authorizes as policy
• -- specifies specific criteria
• -- Zoning Bd to approve if criteria met
• - Ordinance must provide substantial guidance
• -- vague ordinances are unconstitutional
• -- Zoning Bd discretion must be limited

9
Variance

• Authorized zoning deviation for special hardship
• - Area departure from size/setback rules
• - Use allows normally prohibited use

Criteria - Special conditions result in literal
enforcement of ordinance creating unnecessary
hardship - Not contrary to public interest -
Spirit of ordinance observed
Subject to more rigorous review Many
jurisdictions disallow
10
State v. City of Rochester
R-1 R-2
11
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

• Basic chronology
• 1959
• 1962-69
• 1971
• 1978
• 1983
• gt 1992

12
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

• Two key issues presented

13
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

• Succession of ownership

14
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

• Loss of value
• Criteria
• - regulations economic effect
• - reasonable investment-backed expectations
• - character of government action

15
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

• Two key issues presented

16
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

• No economic value Lucas
• - always a taking
• Substantial impact Penn Central
• - can be a taking
• Broad public scheme Euclid
• - not a taking

17
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency (S. Ct. 2002)

• Issue?
• Note narrowness of courts review
• - Penn Central disavowed
• - 4 of 7 theories foreclosed

18
Tahoe-Sierra (2002)

• Holding?

19
The End is in Sight!
Tuesday, April 17 Exactions (Last Class) Read
Nollan v. CA Coastal Commission pp. 1042-49 Read
Dolan v. City of Tigard pp. 1049-57 Office hours
today 1-130 and 3-330 Tomorrow
(Friday) 12-3 Next week T 1-330 and W
10-12 Review session (subject to room
availability)? Thursday April 26 at 2? Friday
April 27 at 10/12/2?
20
Schedule Issues

• - Review session?
• -- Think about it, inputs by Thursday
• - Office Hours?
• -- T/Th 200 330
• -- T W next week
• -- afterwards?

21
Questions?