This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, JD
The question before the Court of Appeals of Georgia (the “Court”) was at what point a landowner had vested rights in real property where Plaintiff purchased the subject property (the “Property”) to develop 9,000 square foot lots when the county’s zoning code (the “Code”) allowed for such density at the time but was later amended to require larger sizes. After the county, where the Property was located, passed, and extended a moratorium on processing land disturbance permits, the Plaintiff’s application to develop the Property was returned due to the moratorium. Plaintiff sought…
The Petitioner challenges the determination of the Town of Tonawanda (Town), which authorized the condemnation of property owned by the petitioner following a public hearing. The property, situated along the Niagara River, includes a coal-fired electric generating station that was decommissioned in 2016 and water intake structures. Petitioner commenced proceeding No. 1 asserting that the Town failed to publish a brief synopsis of its determination and findings within 90 days as required by EDPL 204 (A) and asserting various other grounds for relief. Shortly thereafter the Town published its determination and findings pursuant to EDPL 204 (A) and petitioner then…
This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, Esq.
In 1997, Blinkoff filed a lawsuit against the City of Torrington Planning and Zoning Commission (the “Planning & Zoning Commission”) and several members, alleging discrimination and denial of equal protection. Blinkoff inherited a parcel of land that had been operated as a gravel bank and excavated since the 1950s. She claimed that use of the land as a quarry had been exempt from the City of Torrington’s (the “City”) zoning regulations. Blinkoff alleged that she faced restrictions and selective enforcement based on her gender and religion. The 1997 case went to trial…
This post was authored by Gabriella Mickel, JD Candidate 2024, Elisabeth Haub School of Law at Pace University.
Defendant-landowner Sisters & Brothers Investment Group, LLP (SBIG) appealed an environmental-division enforcement order that prohibited them from using a property in the City of Burlington as a parking lot, requiring them to address site-improvement deficiencies as per an agreement with the prior owner and the City, and imposing fines of $66,759.22.
SBIG purchased the property, a gas and service station (a preexisting, nonconforming use), in 2004, which had existing violations. An agreement was signed between the prior owner and the City, specifying…
This post was authored by Robert Thomas, Esq. and originally appeared on the InverseCondemnation Blog and is reposted with permission. See, https://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2023/05/ca6-legislative-conditions-are-subject-to-nexus-and-proportionality-requirements.html
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Knight v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville, No. 21-6179 (May 10, 2023) held that conditions imposed on every development — and not just ad hoc administratively-imposed conditions — must conform to the Nollan-Dolan-Koontz close nexus and rough proportionality standards.
The Sixth Circuit has added to the growing split in the lower courts about whether legislatively-imposed conditions on development which cover everyone are, as some courts characterize them, mere land use regulations subject…
This post is authored by Andrew LW Peters originally appeared on the Rocky Mountain Sign Law Blog and is reposted with permission.
The Federal District Court for the District of North Dakota denied a request for a preliminary injunction that would have forced the City of Fargo to allow a “premier adult toy retailer” to open a downtown location.
The case arose out of a zoning dispute between plaintiff “Romantix” and Fargo’s planning department. Romantix is considered itself just another eligible retailer to locate downtown. City officials disagreed, saying that Romantix’s business of selling sexual devices instead made it an…
This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Appellants, Douglass Ebner, 2253 Cedar Point LLC, and 2243 Cedar Point LLC appealed the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, the City of Sandusky, on Ebner’s counterclaims that Sandusky Ordinance Nos. 12-107 and 17-088 were invalidly enacted and were unconstitutional. The litigation at issue was initiated on October 31, 2017, when Ebner’s neighbor, Judith Kinzel, filed a complaint against Ebner seeking injunctive relief and damages. Specifically, Kinzel alleged that Ebner’s use of the properties for short-term rentals was in violation of…
Sokoloff Lawyers are committed to protecting your privacy. This Privacy Policy outlines how we handle your personal information to protect your privacy.
Privacy Legislation:Since January 1, 2004, all Canadian organizations engaged in commercial activities have been required to comply with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) and the Canadian Standards Association Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information incorporated by reference into PIPEDA . These obligations extend to lawyers and law firms, including Sokoloff Lawyers.
As a services firm, we have professional and ethical obligations to keep confidential the information we receive in the context of…
