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 Planning Law 4
Landmark Cases 1950 - 1976
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| Lordship Park Assoc v Boardof Zoning Appeals (1950) | Established a developer cannot be held accountable for items in a preliminary plan (one that has not been adopted yet) or standards which are not expressly in the plan |
| Miller v City of Beaver Falls, PA (1951) | A city may not take an area for public use (this case parks) from a development area without compensation. |
| Fisher v Bedminister Township (1952) | Upheld the right for city to zone large lot areas |
| Lionshead Lake v Township of Wayne (1952) | Upheld NJ townships right to use floor area as a standard for building |
| Akron v Chapman (1953) | Overtunred an Ohio ordinance which set a time limit for noncomforming uses to become conforming |
| Berman v Parker (1954) | Approved DC eminnent domain case because the property was part of a larger master plan redevelopment project. |
| Harbison v City of Buffalo (1958) | Stated that a government may force a noncoforming use come into compliance if sufficient time has passed since the change & it is in the best interest of public health, safety, and welfare. |
| Jenad v Village of Scarsdale, NY (1966) | Upheld the right for a city to assess development fees or require provision of land for schools, parks, or other municipal services in order to offset the impact caused by development. |
| Jones v Mayer (1968) | Prohibited racial discrimination in the sale of private property or housing as per the 13th Amendment. |
| Appeal of Kit-Mar Builders (1970) | Overturned a legislation restricting large lot zoning on the basis that it was intended as an exclusionary zoning technique to control population |
| Serrano v Priest (1971) | Overturned the CA education funding system on the basis that it was discrimantory against the poor because it relied solely on individual county property taxes |
| Why were school systems financed solely by county property taxes ruled to be discriminatory again the poor in Serrano v Priest (1971) | 1) Property taxes consume a higher % of income for poor households than they do for wealthy 2) property taxes raise for money in wealthy counties 3) In order to make up the difference in amount of money raised, poor counties must tax at higher rate |
| Golden v Town of Ramapo (1971) | Upheld Ramapo growth management ordinance which linked development of land with a community's ability to provide public utilities, facilities, infrastructure, & services. |
| South Burlington Co NAACP v Township of Mt Laurel, NJ (1972) | Overturned a zoning ordinance which did not allow multifamily dwellings and other low-income housing options in order to restrict the types of people living in the community on the basis that is was discriminatory |
| Fasano v County Commissioners of Washington Co, OR (1973) | Overturned a zoning change on the basis that the change 1) did not conform with the comprehensive plan, 2) was not based on public need 3) not justifiable for only that particular property 4) was not proven necessary 5) decision not made on sound criteria |
| Board of Supervisors of Fairfax Co, VA v Snell Construction Co | Overturned a zoning ordinance established by a newly elected council that downzoned a particular piece of property on the basis that piecemeal downzoning is permissable when a change has occured that result in harm to public health, safety, and welfare |
| Village of Belle Terre v Boraas (1974) | Upheld a zoning ordinance that prevented groups of more than 2 related persons from sharing a home because allowing homes to be turned into offsite college domiciles would harm the health, safety, or welfare of a neighborhood |
| Construction Indust, Assn of Sonoma Co v City of Petaluma, CA (1975) | Upheld a city plan which set limits for growth by limiting number of housing units that could be built on the basis that communities did have the police power & there were justifiable public needs in controlling development |
| Warth v Seldin (1975) | Upheld a zoning ordinance that allowed for a predominance of single family homes on the basis a petetioner must have standing in the case and must provide evidence that specific practice harms them in order to challenge an exclusionary zoning ordinance |
| Carla Hills v Dorothy Gautreaux (1976) | Upheld the right for HUD to look for regional solutions to the problem of housing an area's poor residents and by proving low income housing alternatives outside the city limits in the surrounding suburbs |
| Coleman Young Maror of Detroit v American Mini Theatres | Upheld a city zoning ordinance which require that adult movie theatres be separated from other like uses and away from residential areas on the basis that government may control commercial uses either by clustering them together / dispersing them |
| Associated Homes v Livermore (1976) | Upheld right for local governments to place temporary moratoriums on building permits in order to control growth |
Created by:
kathie_we
Popular U.S. History sets