Real Estate Developer Rights When Cities Demand Too Much
How To Be A Project Advocate By Diffusing Adjacent Neighbor Tensions
Last week, in an important decision for land-use and development lawyers, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled in Palmer Renewable Energy, LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Springfield that permit extensions granted by the...more
On April 14, 2025, Mayor Mike Johnston signed Executive Order 151 to create a new Denver Permitting Office (“DPO”) which is to begin reviewing development and construction permit applications in mid-May. The Executive Order...more
The UK is facing a severe housing crisis, with a chronic shortage of affordable and sustainable homes, rising property prices, and a growing population that outstrips supply. Although the planning system is a key culprit, it...more
In response to the devastating wildfires in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-4-25 on January 12, 2025 to expedite the recovery process in affected communities. The following...more
In an effort to streamline development approvals, the City of Miami has introduced a new Administrative Site Plan Review (ASPR) procedure to address projects that meet zoning requirements without requiring special permits....more
In recent years, courts in Ontario have struggled with the answer to this question, and we direct you to our earlier blog, Requisitioning the Closure of Open Building Permits, on the subject that considered the 2022 case Chan...more
On November 20, 2024, Governor Healey signed An Act Relative to Strengthening Massachusetts’ Economic Leadership, the “Mass Leads Act,” into law. The legislation includes a two-year Permit Extension Act along with several...more
The United States Supreme Court’s most recent Takings case, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, California enunciated a seemingly simple holding, that legislatively-imposed development fees are not, as such, exempt from analysis...more
Investors and developers scour the Southern California real estate market searching for opportunities to buy dated houses that they can demolish and replace with large, modern homes to sell for much more. A few individuals...more
Introduction - On March 29, 2024, the First District Court of Appeal issued its partially published opinion in the case of Vichy Springs Resort, Inc. v. City of Ukiah (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 46....more
Osceola County, City of St. Cloud, and City of Mt. Dora are all set to vote on proposed increases to impact fees that, if approved, will substantially increase the cost of development in these jurisdictions. Below is...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that may significantly affect how development impact fees are assessed in California. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court unanimously held that...more
In a typical permitting process, the local government may place certain conditions on issuing a building permit to further a legitimate public purpose. While the local government has “substantial authority to regulate land...more
On April 12, 2024, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, 601 U.S. 267, 144 S. Ct. 893 (2024). Sheetz concerned El Dorado County's imposition of...more
In April, the Supreme Court held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California that the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution applies to legislative land-use conditions, such as impact fees. This will result in...more
In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits...more
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has again rejected a state's narrow interpretation of the constitutional limits on government's ability to impose development conditions. A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on April 12 in favor of the...more
Porter v. Bd. of Appeal of Bos., No. 22-P-974, 2024 WL 187241 (Mass. App. Ct. Jan. 18, 2024). The case of Porter v. Bd. of Appeal of Boston is the latest case that involves an eternal question posed by developers: how...more
The US Supreme Court’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado earlier this month will affect how local governments impose impact fees in the future and who pays certain development costs....more
Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs) can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes...more
Porter v. Bd. of Appeal of Bos., No. 22-P-974, 2024 WL 187241 (Mass. App. Ct. Jan. 18, 2024). The case of Porter v. Bd. of Appeal of Boston is the latest case that involves an eternal question posed by developers: how does...more
Griffin v. Melrose MA Plan. Bd., No. 23 MISC 000277 (KTS), 2024 WL 146450 (Mass. Land Ct. Jan. 12, 2024) - In Griffin v. Melrose MA Plan. Bd., pro se plaintiff David Griffin (“Griffin”) appealed a decision of the Melrose...more
In a dispute over a traffic impact fee imposed on a residential building permit by El Dorado County, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the long-standing position of California and other state courts that the Takings...more
When the government wants to take private property for a public project, it must compensate the owner at fair market value. The just compensation concept comes from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which provides: “nor...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, in which the Court held that for the purpose of a takings claim there is no distinction in whether permit conditions...more