Zoning & Land Use -- July 2013: Supreme Court Strives to Protect Zoning Applicants from Unreasonable Government Demands

more+
less-

Recently the Supreme Court issued a decision that will have a material impact on applicants seeking zoning and land use related permits. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., 2013 WL 3184628, No. 11-1447 (U.S. June 25, 2013), the Supreme Court clarified prior decisions which held that governmental entities cannot require an applicant to provide payments or other benefits in order to secure a zoning approval, unless there is an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the approval being sought and the benefits demanded by the entity. The Koontz decision may be used as a lynchpin against planning boards, zoning boards and other governmental entities when conditions to an approval of a permit are overly burdensome and expensive.

In the Koontz case, the applicant, a property owner in Florida, sought approvals to develop vacant land. Since part of the project area was located in a wetlands area, Mr. Koontz needed to apply for a permit from the local water district to commence the development. In an effort to leverage Koontz’s application with the water district, the district demanded work to be performed at other water district sites and a reduction of the size and scope of the project coupled with a conservation easement for the benefit of the district. The water district threatened denial of the permit if these demands were not met. The Florida Supreme Court held that the water districts conditions were valid and satisfied the tests of “essential nexus” to an interest of the governmental entity, and that the conditions imposed were proportional to the development that Koontz had sought. The Supreme Court disagreed and found that greater scrutiny of the conditions imposed by the water district was needed and remanded the case to the Florida courts.

Please see full alert below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Dolan v City of Tigard, Fifth Amendment, Koontz v St John's River Water Management, Land Developers, Nexus, Nollan v California Coastal Commission, Permits, Rough Proportionality Test, SCOTUS, Takings, Wetlands

Published In: Civil Procedure Updates, Constitutional Law Updates, Environmental Updates, Residential Real Estate Updates, Zoning, Planning & Land Use Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Ruskin Moscou Faltischek | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »