click below
click below
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Planning Law
AICP Exam Prep HCC - Law
Term | Definition |
---|---|
Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon | Takings Clause - Restrictions on Use - while property maybe regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. | 14th Amendment & Takings Clause - Restrictions on Use - upheld zoning as constitutional, as being within the police power of the state |
Berman v. Parker | Takings Clause - upheld to use eminent domain on unsightly, blighted properties for redevelopment - aesthetics |
Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo | Takings Clause - upheld a growth control plan based on the availability of public services |
Young v. American Mini Theaters | 1st Amendment - communities can zone locations of SOB's without violating 1st Amendment |
Penn Central v. The City of New York | Takings Clause - Restrictions on Use - upheld NYC's Landmark Preservation Law as applied to Grand Central Terminal - barring some development of air rights was not a taking when the interior of property could be put to lucrative use |
First English Evangelical Church v. County of Los Angeles | Takings Clause - Court rejected that sole remedy for taking is payment of full value of property - city could either buy property outright or revoke ordinance and pay church for losses at time of trial - even a temporary taking requires compensation |
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission | Takings Clause - expanded Agin's Test # 1 - land use restrictions must be tied directly to specific public purpose - required a nexus between the taking and that state's interest |
Nexus | the condition has a required degree of connection |
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission | Takings Clause - expanded Agin's Test # 2 - found a taking when owner was called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in name of common good |
Dolan v. City of Tigard | Takings Clause - expanded Agin's Text # 1 - required a reasonable relationship between the conditions to be imposed on a permit and the development's impact - "rough proportionality" |
Agins v. City of Tiburon | Takings Clause - Restrictions on Use - 2 prong test - 1) does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, 2) denies an owner economically viable use of his land |
Agins Test # 1 | a zoning law can be a taking if it does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest |
Agins Test # 2 | a zoning law can be a taking if it denies an owner economically viable use of his land |
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis | Takings Clause - affirmed Agins Test # 1 - some states interests are more legitimate than others - the more defensible the state's interest, the more likely it will be upheld |
Munn v. Illinois | 14th Amendment - paved way for future governmental intervention in private development |
Welch v. Swasey | first authority for communities to regulate development of private property through limitation of building heights and to vary these heights by zone |
Eubanks v. City of Richmond | setback legislation declared constitutional |
Hadacheck v. Sebastian | restriction of future profitable uses was not a taking of property without just compensation |
Town of Windsor v. Whitney | made land subdivision regulations possible by holding that dedication of streets as a prerequisite to platting was possible |
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego | 1st Amendment - ordinances that placed tighter restrictions on non-commercial signs than commercial signs violate 1st amendment |
Renton v. Playtime Theaters | 1st Amendment - upheld separation or concentration requirements for adult uses where a substantial government interest exists (i.e. preserving quality of life) |
Village of Belle Terre v. Boreas | Equal Protection - upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as a family |
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel, NJ | communities in New Jersey must build their "fair share" of affordable housing - precedent setting blow against racial segregation |
Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. Petaluma | communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year if reasonable |
Moore v. East Cleveland | Due Process - cities cannot define family so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other |
Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore | allowed for time phasing in future residential growth until performance conditions were met, including schools, sewer, water, and fire protection |
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency | Takings Clause - a moratorium imposed during process of devising comprehensive plan does not constitute a taking |
Kelo v. City of New London | Takings Clause - city does not violate takings clause if it takes private property and sells it for private development with hopes it will help bad economy - city's use of eminent domain for comprehensive redevelopment qualifies as a public use |
Procedural Due Process | an assurance that all parties to the proceeding are treated fairly and equally- when government acts in a way that denies a citizen of life, liberty, or property, the person must be given notice and the opportunity to be heard |
Substantive Due Process | payment by government of just compensation to property owners when property is condemned by government action - all governmental intrusions into rights and liberties be fair and reasonable and further a legitimate governmental interest |
1st Amendment | freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly |
5th Amendment | No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation |
10th Amendment | The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people |
14th Amendment | No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws |