city

Citizens for Amending Proposition v. City of Pomona

Full Case Name
CITIZENS FOR AMENDING PROPOSITION L et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. CITY OF POMONA, Defendant and Appellant.
Description

The Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the city of Pomona's agreeement with Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. was a new agreement that violated a duty to comply with Proposition L, a ballot initiative that passed which prohibited the construction of additional billboards within Pomona city limits.

Date
11-07-2018
Court
Court of Appeal, Fifth District, California
Jurisdiction
California
Defendants
Incident Location
Pomona, CA
Disputed Act

Proposition L was a ballot initiative that passed which prohibited the construction of additional billboards within Pomona city limits. Plaintiff, a non-profit composed of Pomona city residents formed to advocate for the enforcement of Proposition L, brought suit against the city of Pomona for entering into an extended agreement with Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. (Regency) to allow Regency to erect advertising billboards alongside several Pomona freeways. Issues discussed at city council meetings regarding the extended agreement with Regency included "the locations of billboards in the City, types of digital signs, light emissions, and the possibility of negotiating the removal of the three additional signs."

Holding
The Court affirmed the trial court's rulings that plaintiffs had standing, that the city of Pomona's agreeement with Regency Outdoor Advertising, Inc. was a new agreement that violated a duty to comply with Proposition L, and that plaintiffs were entitled to attorney's fees.
Disposition

Lindquist v. City of Pasadena

Full Case Name
James and Sandra LINDQUIST, Plaintiffs, v. The CITY OF PASADENA, TEXAS, Defendant
Description

The City's Motor Vehicle Dealers Ordinance set boundaries about how close used-car dealerships can be to residential areas in order to curb any detrimental effects on the surrounding residential communities, including nighttime glare and light pollution. The plaintiffs, owners of a used-car dealership, sued the City for denying their dealership's license, alleging an equal protection claim against the City for treating their dealership differently than others. The Court found there was not sufficient evidence for an equal protection claim and dismissed the case.

Date
09-10-2009
Court
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Jurisdiction
United States
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Pasadena, TX
Disputed Act

The City amended its Motor Vehicle Dealers Ordinance, which required used-car dealers to obtain a license for each location at which they sell cars and set boundaries about how close used-car dealerships can be to residential areas. The Ordinance stated in its preamble that its purpose was to curb any detrimental effects on the surrounding residential communities, including nighttime glare and light pollution. The City denied the plaintiffs a license under the amended Ordinance, the plaintiffs appealed, and the City denied that appeal. The plaintiffs sued the City, alleging that the denial of their license-application appeal violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and Texas Constitutions.

Holding
The Court found that the plaintiffs "failed to show that the City exercised unbridled discretion in refusing their appeal" while granting others' appeals and that they "failed to raise a genuine fact issue material to determining whether the City intentionally treated them differently from other similarly situated persons without a rational basis." The Court found that even if the City did not follow all the Ordinance requirements, it followed the purpose of the Ordinance. The Court dismissed the case.
Disposition

Litton International Development Corp. v. City of Simi Valley

Full Case Name
LITTON INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner and Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SIMI VALLEY, the City Council of the City of Simi Valley, Robert O. Huber, Ann Rock, Clyde Evans, Vicky Howard and Greg Stratton, Respondents and Defendants
Description

The Court found that the City of Simi Valley's decision to amend the General Plan designation of the parcel that plaintiff had purchased from "General Commerical with a Hotel/Motel Node" to residential was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and so was constitutional under both state and federal law. The Court dismissed the case.

Date
07-05-1985
Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Jurisdiction
United States
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Simi Valley, CA
Disputed Act

After plaintiff company purchased a parcel of land in the City of Simi Valley, plaintiff was denied a permit by the City to develop the property into a hotel. The City had concerns about the effects of noise, lights, and possible night-time disturbance to the residential area near the parcel if the parcel was developed commercially. The City then amended its General Plan so that the parcel could only be used for residential development. Plaintiff company challenged this redesignation as unconstitutional and in violation of state law.

Holding
The Court found that the City of Simi Valley's decision to amend the General Plan designation of the parcel that plaintiff had purchased from "General Commerical with a Hotel/Motel Node" to residential was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and so was constitutional under both state and federal law. The Court dismissed the case.
Disposition

Scott v. City of Buffalo

Full Case Name
Keith H. Scott, Sr., et al., Petitioners, v. City of Buffalo et al., Respondents
Description

The plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Buffalo for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City of Buffalo from taking any actions toward approval or action upon the agreement about the land sale to the Seneca Nation of Indians for the building of a casino, alleging that an appropriate environmental review was not undertaken, and citing concerns about increased traffic, air pollution, light pollution, and noise from the construction of the casino. The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

Date
11-09-2006
Court
New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
New York
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Buffalo, NY
Disputed Act

Plaintiffs either live or work within 2 blocks of land purchased by the Seneca Nation of Indians (the Nation) from the City of Buffalo for the development of a gaming casino. The plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Buffalo for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the City from taking any actions toward approval or action upon the agreement about the land sale to the Nation for the building of a casino, alleging that an appropriate environmental review was not undertaken, and cited concerns about increased traffic, air pollution, light pollution, and noise from the construction of the casino.

Holding
The Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction against the City of Buffalo. Specifically, the Court found that the the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury or that the balance of equities favored them.
Disposition

Hall v. City of Ridgeland

Full Case Name
Dr. Charles HALL, Janet H. Clark, Beatrice Langston Berry, Kate Sharp, Belinda Boozer, William Murphy, Carol Murphy, Steve Hanneke, Mary Ellen Martin, Mary S. Godbold, Bobby J. Stokes, Kevin Camp, Gary E. Payne, Maria Rosa Gutierrez, Denise Michelle Wilson, Mary Bishoff, John Austin Evans, Mel Evans, Larry Stowe, Paige Stowe and Kim H. Loper v. The CITY OF RIDGELAND, Mississippi, Madison County Land Company, LLC, Southern Farm Bureau Brokerage Company, Inc., Bailey-Madison, LLC, 200 Renaissance, LLC, 100 Renaissance, LLC and Renaissance at Colony Park, LLC
Description

The Court found that although plaintiff residents had the standing to challenge an ordinance granted by the City of Ridgeland about the construction of a thirteen-story office building near them, the City's decision to allow construction of the building was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence.

Date
06-10-2010
Court
Mississippi Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Mississippi
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Ridgeland, Mississippi
Disputed Act

A group of Ridgeland residents challenged the legality of an ordinance issued by the City of Ridgeland to allow developers to construct a thirteen-story office building near them. The residents' concerns about the construction of the commerical development included ingress and egress access issues, depreciation of home values, the height of the building, and after-dark light pollution. The City of Ridgeland argued that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the ordinance.

Holding
The Court held that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge the issuance of the conditional use allowing construction of the building. The Court also held that the City of Ridgeland's ordinance approving the construction of the building near the plaintiff residents was neither arbitrary nor capricious and was supported by substantial evidence.
Disposition

City of Airway Heights v. Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board

Full Case Name
The City of Airway Heights, Respondent, v. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Defendant, Spokane County et al., Appellants, Brigitta Archer, Respondent; Brigitta Archer, Respondent, v. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, Defendant, Spokane County et al., Appellants
Description

The Court affirmed the conclusion of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) that Airway Height's ordinances allowing residential development near the city's airforce base violated Washington State's Growth Management Act (GMA). The court adopted the GMHB’s definition of “incompatible development” as a “development that is incompatible with a military installation's ability to carry out its current or future missions.”

Date
04-12-2016
Court
Washington Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
Washington
Plaintiffs
Incident Location
Airway Heights, Washington
Disputed Act

The 2009 Fairchild Air Force Base Joint Land Use Study (JLUS) was a voluntary collaborative planning effort between local communities, federal officials, residents, business owners, and the military. The JLUS identified residential development near military airport bases as concerning because it brought objections from residents about safety, noise, and light pollution, which endangered the long term viability of the military airport bases. Washington State also had passed a statute, Washington State's Growth
Management Act, which aligns with the conclusions of the JLUS study. The City of Airway Heights adopted ordinances to approve residential development near the local Airforce Base. The Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board invalidated the ordinances because it found they violated the Washington State's Growth Management Act.

Holding
The Court affirmed the conclusion of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board (GMHB) that Airway Height's ordinances allowing residential development near the airforce base violated Washington State's Growth Management Act. However, the Court reversed the lower court's agreement with some of the findings of the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearing Board. Since the Court affirmed one of the three reasons on which the GMHB invalidated the challenged ordinances, the Court concluded that it also affirmed the result of GMHB' s decision and order invalidating the City's ordinances.

ASPEN TRAILS RANCH, LLC v. Simmons

Full Case Name
ASPEN TRAILS RANCH, LLC, Appellant, v. BARRY J. SIMMONS and PETE ELLIOT, and HELENA CITY COMMISSION, Appellees
Description

Commission approved developer's subdivision preliminary plat. Neighbors filed complaints alleging the developer's environmental assessment was inadequate. District Court found the approval of the plat unlawful for failure to address pollution concerns. Developer appealed. The Court found that the Plaintiff's had standing and that the trial court appropriately voided the preliminary plat due to the lack of information about groundwater and surface pollution.

Date
04-14-2010
Court
Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Montana
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Helena, MT
Disputed Act

City Commission approved developer's subdivision preliminary plat. Neighbors filed complaints alleging the developer's environmental assessment inadequately addressed potential increased traffic, decreased water quality, flooding, and light pollution. District Court found the approval of the plat unlawful for failure to address groundwater and surface pollution concerns. Developer appealed.

Holding
The Court found that allowing the developer to file a motion to appeal after the City declined to do so was within the trial court's discretion, that the Plaintiff's had standing, and that the trial court appropriately voided the preliminary plat due to the lack of information about groundwater and surface pollution.
Disposition

Heffernan v. Missoula City Council

Full Case Name
KATHY HEFFERNAN, ROBIN CAREY, DAVID HARMON, and NORTH DUNCAN DRIVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF MISSOULA, and JOHN ENGEN, Mayor, Defendants and Appellants, and MUTH-HILLBERRY, LLC, Intervenor-Defendant and Appellant
Description

City approved plans for a subdivision. Neighbors and an association opposed the subdivision and petitioned for judicial review. District Court found City's decisions to be arbitrary and capricious. City and developer appealed. Court held that Plaintiffs had standing and that the City was required to substantially comply with its growth policy, but did not do so when it approved the subdivision plan. Court also found that the agreement between City and the developer did not supersede the growth policy.

Date
05-03-2011
Court
Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Montana
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Missoula, MT
Disputed Act

City approved plans for a 37-lot subdivision. Nearby residents and a neighborhood association opposed the subdivision due to incompatibility with the City's growth policy, ecological concerns, traffic, and light pollution; they then petitioned for judicial review. District Court found City's decisions to be arbitrary and capricious. City and developer appealed.

Holding
The Court held that the Plaintiffs had standing and that the City was required to substantially comply with its growth policy, but did not do so when it approved the subdivision plan. The Court also found that the density rights agreement between the City and the developer did not supersede the growth policy.
Disposition

Hillstrand v. City of Homer

Full Case Name
Nancy J. HILLSTRAND, Appellant, v. CITY OF HOMER, Appellee
Description

City sought land to expand a water treatment plant. Property owner objected due to impact on access to her property and because the buffer portion of the land would be taken in fee. Court held that the City did not need to complete a final plat by a specific date, that the decision to take buffer land in fee was not arbitrary, and that emininent domain does not prevent the City from taking a fee interest in the buffer land.

Date
10-30-2009
Court
Alaska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Alaska
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Homer, AK
Disputed Act

City sought land through eminent domain to expand a water treatment plant. Property owner objected due to the impact on access to her property and because the part of the land to be used as a buffer would be taken in fee simple interest. Moreover, the plaintiff property owner had requested a deeper buffer than the city proposed to build in order "to preserve the land's appearance from the road and to minimize light pollution from the facility."

Holding
The Court held that the City did not need to complete a final plat by a specific date, that the decision to take buffer land in fee was not arbitrary, and that emininent domain does not prevent the City from taking a fee interest in the buffer land.
Disposition

Templeton Properties, L.P. v. Town of Boone

Full Case Name
TEMPLETON PROPERTIES, L.P., Petitioner v. TOWN OF BOONE, Respondent
Description

Landowner applied to the Board of Adjustment for a permit to develop a medical clinic, which was denied based on concerns for the neighborhood. Court found that the landowner should have had a second chance to present evidence, and that the Board must make reviewable findings of fact based solely on the testimony and evidence presented at hearings.

Date
03-06-2012
Court
North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
North Carolina
Plaintiffs
Defendants
Incident Location
Boone, NC
Disputed Act

Landowner applied to the town Board of Adjustment for a special use permit to develop a medical clinic. The Board denied the application based on concerns for the neighborhood, including light pollution from the parking lot.

Holding
The Court found that the landowner did not receive a "fair trial" because, unlike the residents in opposition to the permit, he did not have a second chance to present evidence. The Court held that the Board must make reviewable findings of fact based solely on the testimony and evidence presented at hearings.
Disposition