News & Analysis as of

Construction Project Building Permits

Mayer Brown

Can Volumetric Construction Solve the Housing Crisis?

Mayer Brown on

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

Buchalter

State of California and the City of Los Angeles Issue Orders to Expedite Recovery and Reconstruction in Response to Los Angeles...

Buchalter on

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

Bilzin Sumberg

City of Miami Approves New Administrative Site Plan Review (ASPR) Process and Extends Life of Special Permits

Bilzin Sumberg on

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

Bennett Jones LLP

Must A Buyer Accept An Open Building Permit On Closing?

Bennett Jones LLP on

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

Nutter McClennen & Fish LLP

Massachusetts Governor Signs Two-Year Permit Extension Act

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

Miller Starr Regalia

Sheetz v. El Dorado County: Death Knell for Development Fee Programs or Harbinger of Judicial Deference?

Miller Starr Regalia on

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

Nossaman LLP

Development Plans and Permitting Efforts Help Ripen Regulatory Takings Claims

Nossaman LLP on

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

Downey Brand LLP

Project’s Completion Did Not Moot CEQA Claim

Downey Brand LLP on

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

Lowndes

Osceola County, St. Cloud, and Mt. Dora Propose Massive Increases to Impact Fees

Lowndes on

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

Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass

Supreme Court Impact Fee Decision Creates Opportunities for Developers and Property Owners

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

Stoel Rives -  Ahead of Schedule

The United States Supreme Court Determines There Is No Distinction Between Legislative and Administrative Takings

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

Davis Wright Tremaine LLP

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: The Supreme Court's Latest Restraint on Development Fees

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

Polsinelli

SCOTUS Decision May Limit Municipalities’ Ability to Collect Impact Fees

Polsinelli on

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

Downey Brand LLP

U.S. Supreme Court Rules That Legislatively-imposed Permit Conditions Must Satisfy the ‘Essential Nexus’ and ‘Rough...

Downey Brand LLP on

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

Cozen O'Connor

U.S. Supreme Court Revisits the Right of Local Government to Exact Permit Conditions from Developers

Cozen O'Connor on

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

Goulston & Storrs PC

Developers Beware: Difficult Multi-Step Process for Obtaining and Cashing In On Appeal Bonds

Goulston & Storrs PC on

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

Sands Anderson PC

Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Chipping Away at Elected Officials’ Power Over Development Costs

Sands Anderson PC on

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

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP

What the Sheetz: Where California Development Impact Fees Stand Following Recent Supreme Court Decision

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

Goulston & Storrs PC

Difficult Multi-Step Process for Obtaining and Cashing In On Appeal Bonds

Goulston & Storrs PC on

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

Goulston & Storrs PC

Those Appealing Zoning Board Decisions Must Comply With 20-Day Period

Goulston & Storrs PC on

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

Perkins Coie

Supreme Court Rules Legislatively Adopted Exactions Not Exempt From Nollan/Dolan Scrutiny 

Perkins Coie on

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

Rosenberg Martin Greenberg LLP

Supreme Court Leaves the Sheetz Out In Takings Case

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

Otten Johnson Robinson Neff + Ragonetti PC

U.S. Supreme Court: Legislative Impact Fees Can Be Unconstitutional Exactions Too

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

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

U.S. Supreme Court: Takings Clause Applies to Impact Fees on New Development

The Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision will create uncertainty in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and many other states as cities, counties, developers and property owners reexamine whether existing impact fee...more

Venable LLP

SCOTUS Rules for Landowner in Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Case

Venable LLP on

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land‑use permit conditions. Building permit...more

128 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 6

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide