Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado (Docket No. 22-1074) is a United States Supreme Court case regarding permit exactions under the Takings Clause.The Supreme Court held, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, that fees for land-use permits must be closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the land use – the test established by Nollan v.
Within an ordinance is a list of land use designations commonly known as zoning. Each different type of zone has its own set of allowed uses. These are known as by-right uses. Then there is an extra set of uses known as special uses. To build a use that is listed as a special use, a special-use permit (or conditional-use permit) must be obtained.
A use variance is a variance that authorizes a land use not normally permitted by the zoning ordinance. [2] Such a variance has much in common with a special-use permit (sometimes known as a conditional use permit). Some municipalities do not offer this process, opting to handle such situations under special use permits instead.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
The "polestar" of regulatory takings jurisprudence is Penn Central Transp. Co. v.New York City (1973). [3] In Penn Central, the Court denied a takings claim brought by the owner of Grand Central Terminal following refusal of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve plans for construction of 50-story office building over Grand Central Terminal.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its California counterpart on Tuesday took legal action to block two 2023 state corporate climate accountability laws from going into effect.
The House rejected a Republican bill to avoid a government shutdown after President-elect Donald Trump, billionaire Elon Musk and the far-right blew up an earlier, bipartisan deal.
In Nollan v.California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a California Coastal Commission regulation which required private homeowners to dedicate a public easement along valuable beachfront property as a condition of approval for a construction permit to renovate their beach bungalow was unconstitutional.