planning and land use law in missouri - planningandlaw
Post on 03-Feb-2022
1 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Pl i & L d Planning & Land Use Law in MissouriUse Law in Missouri
Eastern Jackson County Planning CommissionersTraining Series 2011
Mark White | White & Smith LLCMark White | White & Smith, LLC230 SW Main Street, Suite 209Lee’s Summit, MO 64063816 221 8700 (phone)816.221.8700 (phone)mwhite@planningandlaw.comwww.planningandlaw.com
Planning & Land Use LawCComprehensive Plan
Authority Delegation Preemption
CConstitutional issues Due process Takings Takings Equal Protection
NonconformitiesNonconformities
Authority Creature Concept
Dillon’s Rule Land Use Authority Broad Police Powers
Home Rule Preemption
Adoption
wns
hips
Cha
rter
on-
s 4th C
lass
ties /
Tow
Villa
ges
st C
lass
C
st C
lass
Nha
rter
d/3
rd C
lass
tern
ativ
e /2
nd/3
rd/4
wns
hip
Cit
/ V
Firs
Firs
Ch
2nd
Alt
1st /
Tow
Popular Vote √ √ √ √ √ Zoning / Planning Commission
√* Governing Body / Citizens √ * Governing Body / Highway Engineer / Citizens
√ √
* Highway Engineer / Citizens √ √ * Highway Engineer / Citizens √ √ * Governing Body / Citizens √ Commission referral – original adoption √ √ √ √ √ √ Commission referral – amendment √ √ √ √ √Public hearing for change of use √ √ √
Standard Zoning Enabling Acti d i h “in accordance with
a comprehensive plan”plan
“comprehensive plan” not definedplan not defined
Standard Planning Enabling Actbli i Public improvements
Official mapping Planning
Commission approves public approves public facilities
Rarely litigated Rarely litigated
Role of PlanC i i
"The [comprehensive] plan is atop the hierarchy of local
l l i Constitution community vision fundamental land use
government law regulating land-use. It has been amply analogized to 'a constitution for all future development'.
fundamental land use policies
Findings
Concerned Citizens of Calaveras County, 166 Cal. App. 3d 90, 212 Cal. Rptr. 273, 276-77 (Cal. App. 3 Dist. 1985) (citing O'Loane v.
information legislative findings
E h l l b i
O'Rourke, 231 Cal. App. 2d 774, 42 Cal. Rptr. 283 (1965); Machado v. Musgrove, 519 So.2d 629, 632 (Fla.App. 1987), rev. denied, 529 So.2d 694 (Fla. 1988); Lesher
Enhances legal basis for land use decisions
So.2d 694 (Fla. 1988); LesherCommunications, Inc. v. City of Walnut Creek, 802 P.2d 317 (Cal. 1990).
Consistency
© 2006 White & Smith, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Pinecrest Lakes, Inc. v. Shidel, 795 So.2d 191 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001)
Missouri Consistency No mandatory consistency
* plan language controls!! Unitary view Rationalityy Uniformity Zoning cannot modify or amend plan Zoning cannot modify or amend plan
City of St. Charles v. Devault C y S CManagement (Mo.App. 1997)
C d i Condemnation case Tax Increment Financing (TIF plan) Inconsistent land use designations (residential
v. commercial)Held: condemnation order denied Held: condemnation order denied Burden of proof: fairly debatable rule TIF statute requires full, not substantial, plan TIF statute requires full, not substantial, plan
consistency Strict construction of eminent domain statutes
Consistency is function of specific statute and exercise of powers
Animal Shelter League v Christian Animal Shelter League v. Christian County (Mo.App. 1999)
Permit system Upholds determination that proposed
use was not consistent with plan (negative score) Hearsay admitted w/o objection Presumption favoring Board decision Court deference to local political process
Plans strengthen legality, if not the legitimacy, of local land use decisions
Permitted v. Conditional Usesi d i di Designated in ordinance
Administrative v. ministerial CUP/SUP administrative even where
governing body approves permits
Spot ZoningM h ll S lt L k Cit (Ut h 1943) Marshall v. Salt Lake City (Utah 1943) Residential “C” district created small “utility zones” for
neighborhood conveniences Spot zoning challenge rejected:
“Here the general zoning plan of the city set within a reasonable walking distance of all homes in Residential ‘A’ districts the possibilities of such homes securing daily family conveniences and necessities, such as groceries drugs, and gasoline for the family car, with fee air for the tires and water for the radiator so the wife and the tires and water for the radiator, so the wife and mother can maintain in harmonious operation the family home, without calling Dad from his work to run errands.”
Transect-based zoning(RSMo § 89 010)(RSMo § 89.010)
i ti l l t d prescriptively arranges uses, elements, and environments
geographic cross-section across a continuum from rural to urban
organizes the components of the constructed world, including buildings, lots, land use, street, and all other physical elements of the human habitat
with the objective of creating sustainable communities and emphasizing bicycle lanes, street connectivity, and sidewalks
high-density and mixed use in urban areas high-density and mixed use in urban areas Prevails over conflicting standards imposed by
another jurisdiction Allows theater, cultural arts, and
i di i ( S 6 2 00 2 0)entertainment district (RSMo 67.2500, -.2510)
Design
New Home Construction1976 2002 %1976 2002 %
Average building sf 1,700 2,320 36%Average lot size (sf) 10,125 16,454 63%
© 2006 White & Smith, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
g ( )
Borron v. Farrenkopfp(Mo.App. 1999) [Linn County] Health ordinance established
environmental controls and requires b dibonding
"nothing in this section shall be construed as restricting local controls"
Held: Authorized by health ordinance statute Not covert zoning Not preempted by CAFO statute
Borron v. Farrenkopfp(Mo.App. 1999) [Linn County] “The regulations in question do have a
zoning quality about them, but … there i f t f l d t h i l is a font of case law and technical information illustrating the health h d l t d t h f iliti Th hazards related to hog facilities. … The purpose of the ordinance was to regulate for health concerns rather regulate for health concerns rather than for a uniform development of real estate ”estate.
Subdivision Regulations Govern the division of land Provide for reliable ownership records Ensure safe and adequate lot creation Assure adequate site improvements Assure adequate site improvements Provide for the timing and sequencing
of growthof growth Establish development standards
Application ProcessApplication Process
OptionalOptionalPre-application
DiscretionaryP bli H iPublic Hearing
Ministerial
Construction security City of Bellefontaine Neighbors v. J.J.
Realty & Bldg. Co., 460 S.W.2d 298 (M A 1970) (Mo.App. 1970) authority to require performance bonds as a
condition of subdivision plat approval condition of subdivision plat approval "total silence concerning power in cities of
the fourth class to regulate subdivisions "the fourth class to regulate subdivisions.
Construction securityH B ild A Of G t St L i Cit f Home Builders Assn. Of Greater St. Louis v. City of Wildwood, 107 S.W.3d 235 (Mo. 2003) “construction deposit”= 110% of DPW estimated costp “maintenance deposit” = 10% estimated construction
costs 5% withheld on release pending completion of all 5% withheld on release pending completion of all
improvements Held: authorized by RSMo 89.410
Costs often higher than developer’s estimate or unexpected Costs often higher than developer s estimate or unexpected Statute enables reasonable estimate Statute not limited to “actual costs”, just “actual construction Rule of reasonableness Rule of reasonableness Actual construction often occurs years after estimated cost
Constitutional IssuesConstitutional Issues
Takings Substantive Due
Process Procedural Due
PProcess Equal Protection First Amendment
Types of Takings Cases Downzoning Tough Standards Permit Denials Permit Conditions Permit Conditions Exactions
Takings – Fifth Amendment
Private Property Public Use Just Compensation
“While property may be regulated to a t i t t if l ti t f it ill certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will
be recognized as a taking.”Pennsylvania Coal v. MahonPennsylvania Coal v. Mahon
LucC
oa cas va
sta v. Soua
l Co uth Counc C
aro
ilolinaa
Source: William Fischel, Dartmouth College (at http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/lucasessay.html)
Dallen v KC (Mo App 1992)Dallen v. KC (Mo.App. 1992)
S i l i S C id i i i Special Main Street Corridor Review District Enabling ordinances prohibited modifications
of use restrictions in underlying districtof use restrictions in underlying district H: Ten (10) foot maximum setback invalid as
applied to gas stationapplied to gas station What in the !@$# constitutes “rural, rustic or
non-urban characteristics?”?!?!non urban characteristics? ?!?!
State Ex rel. Stoyanoff v. yBerkeley (Mo. 1970)
ARB t d t i ARB to determine: whether new buildings are in “general conformity
with the style and design of surrounding structures and conducive to the proper architectural development of the City”
Disapproval if structure “unsightly, grotesque or unsuitable in appearance, [and] detrimental to the welfare of surrounding property and residents.”
Upheld Impracticality of comprehensive standard Procedural safeguards (appeal to City Council) Procedural safeguards (appeal to City Council)
Procedural Due Process Fair & impartial tribunal Fair procedures Opportunity for hearing Opportunity to confront Opportunity to confront
Equal Protectionf Types of cases
Ordinance classifications / applicability Ordinance exemptions Ordinance exemptions Permit denials Permit conditions
D i l f bli i Denial of public services
Tests Fundamental right/suspect class => strict scrutiny Fundamental right/suspect class => strict scrutiny Property right => rational basis
First AmendmentT i l Typical cases: Signs Adult uses
Tests: Time, place & manner => Narrow
scope and ample alternativesscope and ample alternatives Content based => strict scrutiny +
compelling interestAd i i t ti di ti Administrative discretion
Prior restraint
Federal Legislation Fair Housing Act / Americans with
Disabilities Act Telecommunications Act Religious Land Use & Institutionalized g
Persons Act (RLUIPA) Sustainable Communities InitiativeSustainable Communities Initiative
Non-conforming (“Grandfathered”) Situations(“Grandfathered”) SituationsTests TypesTests lawfully established prior to new regulations
Types Use Bulk (height, size) prior to new regulations
maintained continuously
Setbacks Coverage Lot size Lot size Development standards
(e.g., parking, landscaping)
Vested Rights Definition:
Point in development approval process at hi h l d i ht t b ild d which landowner secures right to build under
existing regulations, without complying with changes in regulationschanges in regulations
Vested rights versus nonconforming use
Equitable Estoppelq pp Long v. Board of Adjustment, 856
S W 2d 390 (M A W D 1993)S.W.2d 390 (Mo.App. W.D. 1993) SF dwelling used as a MF dwelling for 31 years Plaintiff maintained business licensePlaintiff maintained business license Plaintiff obtained certificate of compliance per
Rental Housing Conservation Law Plaintiff paid real estate taxes at a commercial rate Plaintiff paid real estate taxes at a commercial rate MF dwelling violated zoning district regulations from
inceptionCity filed NOV 1977 & 1991 City filed NOV 1977 & 1991
Plaintiff’s appeal denied by BZA
top related