Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Catherine Sullivan, trustee of the Catherine Sullivan Family Trust of 2000, owns residential property adjacent to Megan Gruver's equestrian facility, Silver Bell Ranch, in Blaine County, Idaho. Gruver was issued a conditional use permit (CUP) in 2019 to operate the facility, which Sullivan did not appeal. In 2021, Gruver sought modifications to the CUP to hold three events per year, board additional horses, and hire more staff. Sullivan objected, citing concerns about noise, traffic, and property devaluation, but the Blaine County Board of Commissioners approved the modified CUP with conditions.Sullivan appealed the Board's decision to the district court, arguing that the Board erred in categorizing Silver Bell Ranch as an "Outdoor Recreational Facility" rather than an "Agricultural Business" and that the modifications would prejudice her substantial rights. The district court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that Sullivan failed to show how the modifications prejudiced her substantial rights and that her arguments regarding the categorization of the facility were time-barred because she did not appeal the 2019 CUP.The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The Court held that Sullivan's arguments regarding the categorization of Silver Bell Ranch were time-barred and that she failed to establish prejudice to her substantial rights under Idaho Code section 67-5279(4). The Court also found that the district court acted within its discretion in excluding Sullivan's arguments related to prejudice that were raised for the first time in her reply brief. Blaine County was awarded attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code section 12-117(1), while Gruver was not entitled to attorney fees as she was not an adverse party to Blaine County. Both Blaine County and Gruver were awarded costs on appeal. View "Sullivan v. Blaine County" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the use of farm dwellings in the agricultural district of Hawai‘i for short-term vacation rentals. In 2019, the County of Hawai‘i passed an ordinance banning short-term vacation rentals on lots built after 1976 in the agricultural district. The Rosehill Petitioners, who own lots created after 1976, sought nonconforming use certificates to use their farm dwellings as short-term vacation rentals, which the County denied. The Petitioners appealed the denial to the County Board of Appeals, and both parties agreed to stay the appeal and seek a declaratory order from the Land Use Commission (LUC).The LUC ruled that farm dwellings could not be used as short-term vacation rentals, finding that such use was incompatible with the agricultural district's purpose. The LUC also found the Rosehill Petitioners' request speculative and hypothetical. The Petitioners appealed to the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, which reversed the LUC's decision, holding that farm dwellings and short-term vacation rentals were not incompatible and that the LUC had abused its discretion.The LUC appealed to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA), arguing that the circuit court erred in its findings and that the LUC's interpretation of HRS § 205-4.5 was correct. While the case was pending, the Hawai‘i Supreme Court issued a decision in In re Kanahele, which clarified that appeals from LUC declaratory orders should be made directly to the Supreme Court. The Rosehill Petitioners then applied for transfer to the Supreme Court, which was granted.The Supreme Court of Hawai‘i held that the case could be transferred nunc pro tunc to the date the appeal was initially filed in the circuit court. The Court reviewed the entire record, including the circuit court and ICA proceedings, but gave no weight to the circuit court's findings. The Court affirmed the LUC's decision, holding that farm dwellings in the agricultural district could not be used as short-term vacation rentals, as such use would undermine the purpose of the agricultural district. The Court vacated the circuit court's judgment and affirmed the LUC's declaratory order. View "Rosehill v. State" on Justia Law

King County Ordinance 19030 altered zoning and business licensing regulations for wineries, breweries, and distilleries (WBDs) in agricultural and rural areas. The ordinance aimed to support economic development but faced challenges regarding compliance with the Growth Management Act (GMA) and the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The ordinance allowed for expanded WBD operations and introduced new licensing requirements, but it also raised concerns about environmental impacts and the preservation of agricultural land.The Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board found that the County failed to comply with SEPA and the GMA, invalidating parts of the ordinance. The Board's decision was appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the Board's ruling. Friends of Sammamish Valley and Futurewise sought further review, arguing that the County did not adequately address environmental impacts and agricultural land preservation. The County contended that the ordinance was a "nonproject action" not requiring environmental review under SEPA and presumed valid under the GMA.The Supreme Court of Washington reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the Board's order. The Court held that the County's SEPA checklist was insufficient, failing to address the full range of probable environmental impacts. The Court emphasized that the GMA requires the conservation of agricultural land and that the ordinance's changes could significantly impact the environment. The Court concluded that the County must conduct a comprehensive environmental review to comply with SEPA and the GMA. View "King County v. Friends of Sammamish Valley" on Justia Law

The City of Helena appealed a decision by the Shelby Circuit Court that allowed the Pelham Board of Education (PBE) to acquire, develop, and use a piece of real property within Helena's corporate limits for an athletic field and parking lot to serve Pelham High School students. The property, purchased by the PBE in 2021, is adjacent to Pelham High School but located within Helena. Helena argued that the PBE lacked the authority to construct and operate school facilities outside Pelham's corporate limits and that the project violated Helena's zoning ordinance.The Shelby Circuit Court ruled in favor of the PBE, stating that city zoning ordinances do not apply to governmental functions performed by a government body. The court found that the PBE's construction of the athletic field was a governmental function related to public education, which is exempt from local zoning regulations. Helena appealed, arguing that the PBE's actions were not authorized under Alabama Code § 16-11-9 and that the project did not comply with Helena's zoning ordinance.The Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that § 16-11-9 does not restrict a city board of education's powers to the geographic boundaries of the city it serves. The court also concluded that the PBE's construction and operation of the athletic field constituted a governmental function related to public education, which is exempt from municipal zoning ordinances. Therefore, Helena's zoning ordinance could not be enforced against the PBE's project. The court affirmed the circuit court's order, allowing the PBE to proceed with the development and use of the property. View "City of Helena v. Pelham Board of Education" on Justia Law

Citizens of a town submitted a document they claimed was a petition for a referendum to reverse a zoning ordinance that reclassified certain properties. The document contained 1,051 signatures but did not mention the ordinance number or request a referendum. The town's Board of Commissioners reviewed the document and determined it did not meet the requirements of the town's charter for a valid petition for referendum. The citizens then refiled the document with a cover page referencing the ordinance and requesting a referendum, but the signature pages remained unchanged.The Circuit Court for Harford County ruled that the Commissioners' determination was invalid because they did not first verify the signatures and did not act by ordinance or resolution. The court ordered the town to verify the signatures and proceed with the referendum process if the signatures were valid.The Supreme Court of Maryland reviewed the case and held that the Commissioners correctly determined the document did not meet the charter's requirements. The court found that the charter did not require the Commissioners to verify signatures before determining the petition's validity. The court also held that the Commissioners were authorized to make their determination by a verbal motion, which was memorialized in the meeting minutes, and did not need to adopt an ordinance or resolution.The Supreme Court of Maryland vacated the Circuit Court's judgment and remanded the case for entry of a declaratory judgment consistent with its opinion, affirming that the citizens were not entitled to a writ of mandamus or permanent injunctive relief. View "Town of Bel Air v. Bodt" on Justia Law

AUUE, Inc. applied for a zoning permit to develop a medical center, including a hospital, medical clinic, and professional offices, on five parcels of land in Jefferson Hills Borough. The Borough's Zoning Officer issued a use permit, recognizing that the proposed use was allowed by right in the Office Park District (O-P District), but conditioned the permit on AUUE obtaining further approvals before any development could commence. Residents of Jefferson Hills appealed, arguing that the application violated several provisions of the Borough’s Zoning Ordinance.The Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) overturned the Zoning Officer’s decision, concluding that the proposed medical center was not permitted by right in the O-P District and that the Zoning Officer exceeded his authority by issuing a permit without ensuring full compliance with the Ordinance. The ZHB identified several violations in the application, including improper use of accessory parking lots and lack of direct access to a collector or arterial road.The Commonwealth Court reversed the ZHB’s decision, holding that the Zoning Officer had the authority to issue a use permit recognizing the proposed use as allowed by right in the O-P District. The court found that the ZHB should have limited its review to whether the proposed use was permitted by right, rather than considering overall compliance with the Ordinance.The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the Commonwealth Court’s decision. It held that the Zoning Officer had the authority to issue a use permit for the limited purpose of recognizing that the proposed use was allowed by right in the O-P District. The ZHB was required to limit its review to this issue and was not permitted to overturn the Zoning Officer’s decision based on other potential violations of the Ordinance. View "AUUE, Inc. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills" on Justia Law

The Regents of the University of California (Regents) approved the construction of a new hospital at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) Parnassus Heights campus. The Parnassus Neighborhood Coalition (the Coalition), a group of local property owners, sued to halt the construction, arguing it would violate local building height and bulk restrictions. The Regents countered that as a state entity, they were immune from local building and zoning regulations when engaging in governmental activities, such as constructing university buildings. The trial court disagreed, ruling that the question of whether the construction constituted a governmental or proprietary activity could not be resolved at this stage.The trial court concluded that the Regents' immunity depended on whether the proposed construction was a governmental or proprietary activity, a question of fact that could not be resolved on a demurrer. The court further concluded that the exemption only applies when a project is solely for educational purposes. The Regents petitioned for a writ of mandate to vacate the trial court’s order.The Court of Appeal of the State of California First Appellate District Division Three reviewed the case. The court held that the proposed hospital would facilitate the provision of clinical services, thereby advancing UCSF’s academic mission and the Regents’ educational purpose, which is a governmental activity. Therefore, the project falls within the Regents’ broad public purpose, and the Regents are exempt from the local regulations at issue. The court concluded that the demurrer should have been sustained and issued the writ of mandate. The court also ordered modifications to the published opinion filed on June 13, 2024, but there was no change in the judgment. View "Regents of the University of Calif. v. Super. Ct." on Justia Law

The case revolves around the Casa Blanca Beach Estates Owners’ Association (Casa Blanca) and its dispute with the County of Santa Barbara (County) and the California Coastal Commission (Commission). Over 30 years ago, the County approved the development of a 12-lot oceanfront subdivision in Carpinteria, managed by Casa Blanca. One of the conditions for approval was the construction of a public beach access walkway. The County accepted the offer to dedicate the walkway in 2011. In 2017, the County and Commission alleged that Casa Blanca had missed the deadline to construct the walkway. Casa Blanca submitted construction plans but was told it needed a coastal development permit from the Commission. The Commission deemed the application incomplete, leading to a series of unsuccessful attempts to complete the application.The trial court found that Casa Blanca had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The court granted the County's motion for summary judgment on all causes of action and denied Casa Blanca's. The court found that the offer to dedicate had been timely accepted by the County. As for the second cause of action seeking a determination regarding the deadline for Casa Blanca to construct the walkway, the court found it had no jurisdiction because Casa Blanca had failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The Commission demurred on grounds Casa Blanca failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The trial court sustained the demurrer without leave to amend and entered judgment in favor of the County and Commission.The Court of Appeal of the State of California Second Appellate District Division Six affirmed the trial court's decision. The court found that Casa Blanca's action was not ripe because it had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. The court also disagreed with Casa Blanca's argument that the exhaustion doctrine does not apply to its claim for declaratory relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1060. The court concluded that a party may not evade the exhaustion requirement by filing an action for declaratory or injunctive relief. View "Casa Blanca Beach Estates Owners’ Assn v. County of Santa Barbara" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the incorporation of the proposed City of St. George in Louisiana. The petition for incorporation was filed in 2018 and was approved by the governor, leading to a special election in which 54% of voters approved the incorporation. However, a legal challenge was filed by Baton Rouge’s Mayor-President and a Metropolitan Councilman, arguing that the petition for incorporation was deficient and that the proposed city would be unable to provide public services within a reasonable period of time. They also contended that the incorporation would have an adverse impact on Baton Rouge.The trial court denied the incorporation, finding that the petition minimally satisfied the statutory requirements and that the incorporation was unreasonable. The court found that St. George would operate at a deficit, affecting the timely provision of public services, and that lost tax revenue would significantly impact Baton Rouge. The court of appeal affirmed the denial of incorporation, finding the petition deficient as it failed to include a plan for the provision of services.The Supreme Court of Louisiana reversed the lower courts' decisions. The court found that the lower courts erred in their calculations of St. George's operating costs and potential revenues. The court also found that the lower courts failed to consider the cost savings that would result from Baton Rouge no longer having to provide services to St. George. The court concluded that St. George could provide public services within a reasonable period of time and that the incorporation was reasonable. The court therefore rendered judgment in favor of the proponents of incorporation. View "BROOME VS. RIALS" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute over the approval of a site certificate for the construction of a wind energy facility in Umatilla County, Oregon. The Energy Facility Siting Council granted the certificate to Nolin Hills Wind, LLC, despite the proposed facility not complying with a local siting criterion requiring a two-mile setback between any turbine and a rural residence. Umatilla County sought judicial review of the council's decision, arguing that the council should have required Nolin Hills to comply with the two-mile setback rule.The case was reviewed by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon. The court noted that the council had the authority to approve the proposed energy facility despite its failure to comply with the two-mile setback rule. The court also noted that the council had the authority to approve the proposed facility even if it did not pass through more than three land use zones and even if it did not comply with all of the county’s recommended substantive criteria.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon affirmed the council's decision, concluding that the council was authorized to issue a site certificate for the proposed wind facility notwithstanding the failure of the proposed facility to comply with the two-mile setback rule. The court found that the council was not required to reject a proposed facility simply because it did not comply with a local criterion. The court also rejected the county's argument that the council erred in concluding that the proposed facility "does otherwise comply with the applicable statewide planning goals." View "Umatilla County v. Dept. of Energy" on Justia Law