City of Arlington, Texas v. Federal Communications Commission
(U.S. Supreme Court, May 20, 2013)
This case was previously discussed in this blog here. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion, which effectively validates the FCC’s shot clock declaratory ruling. A summary of the Court’s opinion:
The Federal Telecommunications Act (FTA) requires state or local governments to act on siting applications for wireless facilities “within a reasonable period of time after the request is duly filed.” Relying on its broad authority to implement the FTA, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) issued a Declaratory Ruling (the shot clock) concluding that the phrase “reasonable period of time” is presumptively (but rebuttably) 90 days to process an application to place a new antenna on an existing tower and 150 days to process all other applications. The cities of Arlington and San Antonio, Texas, argued that the Commission lacked authority to interpret the language “within a reasonable period of time” because doing so amounted to determining the jurisdictional limits of its own authority – a task exclusively within the province of Congeress. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals applied precedent from the case of Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, to that question. Finding the statute ambiguous, it upheld as a permissible construction of the statute the FCC’s view that the FTA’s broad grant of regulatory authority empowered it to adopt the Declaratory Ruling.
In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit. Writing for the majority, Justice Scalia found no distinction between an agency’s “jurisdictional” and “nonjurisdictional” interpretations. When a court reviews an agency’s interpretation of a statute it administers, the question is always, simply, whether the agency has stayed within the bounds of its statutory authority. The “jurisdictional-nonjurisdictional” line is meaningful in the judicial context because Congress has the power to tell the courts what classes of cases they may decide—that is, to define their jurisdiction—but not to prescribe how they decide those cases. For agencies charged with administering congressional statutes, however, both their power to act and how they are to act is authoritatively prescribed by Congress, so that when they act improperly, no less than when they act beyond their jurisdiction, what they do is beyond their authority and can be struck down by a court. Under Chevron, a reviewing court must first ask whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue; if so, the court must give effect to Congress’ unambiguously expressed intent. If, however the statute is silent or ambiguous, the court must defer to the administering agency’s construction of the statute so long as it is permissible. Because the question is always whether the agency has gone beyond what Congress has permitted it to do, there is no principled basis for carving out an arbitrary subset of “jurisdictional” questions from the Chevron framework.
The Court rejected Arlington’s contention that Chevron deference is not appropriate here because the FCC asserted jurisdiction over matters of traditional state and local concern. The case does not implicate any notion of federalism: The statute explicitly supplants state authority, so the question is simply whether a federal agency or federal courts will draw the lines to which the States must hew.
A general conferral of rulemaking authority validates rules for all the matters the agency is charged with administering. In this case, the preconditions to deference under Chevron are satisfied because Congress has unambiguously vested the FCC with general authority to administer the Communications Act through rulemaking and adjudication, and the agency’s interpretation of “reasonable period of time” at issue was promulgated in the exercise of that authority.
]]>Curry Investment Co., et al. v. Kansas City Board of Zoning Adjustment
(Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District, May 7, 2013)
On May 20, 2011, MLB Holdings filed an application with the Kansas City Board of Zoning Adjustment (BZA) requesting a special use permit to operate a pawn shop in Kansas City, Missouri. The landowner, Curry Investment Company, agreed to lease its building and parking lot to MLB. The property where the building and parking lot are located contains two nonconforming outdoor advertising signs, which Curry Investment leases to CBS Outdoor. The BZA held a hearing on July 12, 2011, concerning MLB’s application. The BZA staff submitted a report at the hearing that cited the requisite special use permit criteria, and concluded that “all of these criteria are met with the proposed application.” The report also stated:
In recent years staff has had a general policy that as property is redeveloped,3 any existing billboards that are on the site are removed within five years of the approval of the development. The City Plan Commission has affirmed that position several times, specifically in the last several months . . . . Staff believes as part of the approval process for a pawn shop that this development be held to the same standard as other developments within other areas of the City.
Curry Investment opposed any condition that required removal of the signs. Ultimately, the BZA approved the special use permit subject to conditions, including removal of the outdoor advertising signs. Curry Investment and MLB requested a rehearing. The BZA held a hearing on the request for rehearing, and the BZA thereafter denied a rehearing.
Curry appealed the BZA decision to circuit court, which found that the BZA’s decision to require removal of the two outdoor advertising signs for special use permit approval for the pawnshop was not supported by substantial and competent evidence, was unrelated to any impact generated by the pawnshop use at the property, and exceeded the BZA’s authority. The BZA then filed a notice of appeal to the Missouri court of appeals.
The BZA contended that its authority to require removal of nonconforming signs as a condition for a special use permit comes from its mandate to determine if a proposed special use complies with the standards of the Code, whether it is in the interest of the public convenience and will not have a significant adverse impact on the general welfare of the neighborhood or community, and whether it is compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of building scale and project design. The Court of Appeals disagreed. The record reflected that the BZA staff examined all of the special use criteria set forth in the zoning code and concluded that “all of these criteria are met with the proposed application.” Therefore, the staff found the proposed pawn shop, in its proposed location: 1) to be in compliance with the standards of the Code, 2) to be in the interest of public convenience and to not have a significant adverse impact on the general welfare of the neighborhood or community, 3) to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of site planning and building scale and project design, 4) to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area in terms of operating characteristics, such as hours of operation, outdoor lighting, noise, and traffic generation, and 5) to not have a significant adverse impact on pedestrian safety or comfort. “While the BZA now contends otherwise on appeal, nothing in the record suggests that removal of the nonconforming outdoor advertising signs was related to any of the special use criteria set forth in the Code. To the contrary, the BZA staff stated that all of the special use criteria were met, but that sign removal was recommended based on a ‘general’ staff policy that as property is redeveloped, the removal of existing billboards is required….Once it was determined that the criteria for the special use permit were met, it was unreasonable to require removal of the nonconforming signs as a special use permit condition. While the BZA may want to foster a general policy that, as property is redeveloped, any existing billboards on a site are removed, where the BZA has proven no relation to sign removal with the special use criteria set forth in the zoning code, this policy is in contradiction to [the protection of] nonconforming signs.”
]]>Rondigo, LLC, Dolores Michaels v. Township of Richmond, Michigan
(Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, March 28, 2013)
Rondigo, LLC is a Michigan limited liability company in Macomb County owned by Dolores Michaels. Rondigo and Michaels (the plaintiffs) have operated a farm in Richmond Township since 2004. In February 2006, the plaintiffs began composting on the farm and started constructing a driveway to assist with the composting. The Supervisor of Richmond Township, Gordon Furstenau, issued a stop-work order. The Township filed suit in state court in regards to the driveway’s construction, which they claimed violated several zoning ordinances.
The Michigan Department of Agriculture also received complaints from neighbors about the farm’s odor. So the Department inspected the farm in October 2006 and ordered the plaintiffs to submit a compost operations plan by December 2006. The Department inspected the farm again in January 2007 and found that the plaintiffs had been stockpiling leaves. The Department advised them to remove the piles because runoff from the leaves could negatively impact groundwater in the area. The plaintiffs did not remove the piles, allegedly because they could not do so without the driveway. The Department sent a letter in April 2007, saying it would refer the matter to the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) if the leaves were not removed. So the plaintiffs filed an emergency motion with the state court to remove the bar on the driveway’s construction. The court granted the motion, but the plaintiffs did not remove the leaves. So the matter was referred to the MDEQ.
In January 2008, the plaintiffs filed this suit against Richmond Township, Furstenau, Four Township Citizens’ Coalition, more than 20 Macomb County residents, 2 Department employees, and 3 MDEQ employees. “The plaintiffs asserted five claims: (1) a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim that the defendants violated the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; (2) a 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) claim that the defendants conspired to deprive the plaintiffs of their constitutional rights; (3) a 42 U.S.C. § 1986 claim that the defendants knowingly failed to prevent the violation of the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights; (4) a civil-conspiracy claim under Michigan state law; and (5) a defamation claim under Michigan state law.” The plaintiffs also asserted that the Township’s zoning ordinances were unconstitutionally vague. The district court dismissed all these claims, so the plaintiffs appealed to the 6th Circuit.
First, the plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in holding that “res judicata” bars their claims against the Township and Furstenau. Under Michigan law, “res judicata” bars an action if it involves the same parties as a prior action and if the matter could have been resolved in that prior action. The plaintiffs could have asserted their claim against the Township and Furstenau in state court. The plaintiffs did not pursue many of the claims they used as defenses against the Township’s complaint. The claims previously brought before the state court and the claims presented in this case arose from the same events. So “res judicata” precludes the plaintiffs from asserting their claims against the Township and Furstenau because these claims could have raised in a prior state action.
Next, the plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in dismissing their § 1983 claims against the Four Township’s Citizens’ Coalition and the Macomb County residents. The plaintiffs cannot maintain these claims against these defendants, however, because they are not state actors. Also, the plaintiffs did not appeal the dismissal of their § 1985(3) or § 1986 claims against these defendants. Therefore they waived these claims. The plaintiffs do appeal the dismissal of their state-law claims, but they failed to develop their argument against the dismissal. So the plaintiffs waived these claims as well.
Finally, the plaintiffs argued that the district court erred in dismissing their defamation and civil-conspiracy claims against the Department and MDEQ employees. In regards to the defamation claim, “the plaintiff must allege that the defendant made a false and defamatory statement about the plaintiff. But a qualified privilege protects the defendant from the defamation claim if the defendant had an interest or duty to make the statement to someone having a corresponding interest or duty.” The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made defamatory statements to state employees and to the plaintiffs’ neighbors. But these statements were made while investigating complaints about the farm. The defendants had an interest in communicating with their co-workers and the plaintiffs’ neighbors to facilitate the investigation. And the employees and neighbors had a shared interest in the investigation. So the plaintiffs did not overcome the qualified privilege, which protects the defendants from the plaintiffs’ defamation claims. Additionally, a civil-conspiracy claim cannot “exist in the air.” So the plaintiffs cannot maintain civil-conspiracy claims because there were no other claims left in this case.
The 6th Circuit Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims by the district court.
]]>Gregory Frandsen, et al. v. City of North Oaks
(Minnesota Court of Appeals, February 19, 2013)
The City of North Oaks enacted an ordinance (§§ 150.055-.062) in 1989 that requires permits to build swimming pools and that swimming pools be enclosed by safety fences. Michael Johnson, James Rechtiene, and Gregory Frandsen (the appellants) own swimming pools not enclosed by fences, despite their permits being contingent upon compliance with the fencing requirement. Instead all three have automatic locking pool covers. In April 2010, the City notified the appellants that they were in violation of the fencing requirement. The appellants asked the City to consider amending the ordinance so that it would allow automatic locking covers to serve as an alternative. The City agreed to suspend enforcement and research the alternative.
After forming subcommittees to research several alternatives, reviewing information from insurance companies, and hearing from citizens at public hearings the planning commission agreed to recommend to the city council that fences be required to enclose all pools built after 1989, that the back of a home could be used as one side of the enclosure, and that locking covers not be allowed as a substitute for the fencing requirement. At a December 2010 meeting, the city council voted in favor of the planning commission’s recommendation. The amended ordinance became effective in July 2011. So in April 2011, the City notified the appellants that they had until July 1 to comply with the amended ordinance. Appellants responded by bringing this suit against the City, alleging that the amended ordinance violates their equal protection rights and that the amended ordinance is arbitrary and capricious. The district court denied their appeal, so the appellants appealed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals’ duty is to determine “whether the district court properly applied the law and whether there are genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment.” The district court referred to the ordinance as one that “promote[s] the health, safety and general welfare of [the city’s] residents.” The Minnesota Court of Appeals agreed that the ordinance is a general safety ordinance.
By exempting pre-1989 pools from the ordinance, the appellants argued that their equal protection rights were violated. They argued that there is no rational reason for this exclusion when the purpose of the ordinance is to keep children from harm: “[W]hatever danger to children exists with respect to pools built after the effective date of the ordinance also exists with respect to pools built before the effective date of the ordinance.” Since the City’s pool safety-fence ordinance became effective in May 1989, building permits of pools prior to May 1989 were not conditioned to comply with this ordinance. But the appellants’ building permits were conditioned to comply with this ordinance because their pools were built after 1989. Therefore the appellants are not similarly situated to homeowners who built pools prior to 1989. In addition, “the practice of grandfathering non-conforming properties has been upheld in the face of equal-protection challenges since at least 1914.” The appellants failed to explain why grand-fathering is rational with respect to zoning ordinances, but irrational with respect to a general welfare ordinance, so the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that it was not a violation of equal protection for the City to treat its residents differently with respect to the law effective when their pools were built.
The appellants also argued, without explanation, that the amended ordinance was arbitrary and capricious because it allowed a wall of a building to serve as one side of the enclosure, which they argued increased the risk of harm to children. The appellants cited a unidentified report from “US Public Safety Commission” that supported the conclusion that a house should never be considered part of the fence. But the court could not verify the existence of a “US Public Safety Commission.” To the contrary, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission report considered by the planning commission stated that “when a door opens directly onto the pool area, ‘the wall of the house is an important part of the pool barrier.’” Amending an ordinance is a legislative power in which the municipality has discretion as long as there is a rational basis for its decision. The court held that the City’s decision is rational because it is directly related to promoting prevention of trespassing children gaining access to pools. The City’s decision is not arbitrary as long as one valid reason exists.
Finally, the appellants contested the City’s decision to not allow pool covers as an alternative to the fence requirement. They pointed to evidence that showed that a pool cover is a safe and viable alternative to a fence. This evidence does not mandate that the City to allow pool covers as an alternative, however. The City researched the issue for more than six months and considered numerous resources before reaching a decision. The City expressed concern for pool covers’ susceptibility to mechanical failures, human errors, and enforcement issues. The decision to require fences and not allow locking covers as substitutes is a rational decision.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision to deny the appellants’ claims.
]]>This article originally appeared in the Legal Briefs section of the May “The Iowa County” magazine.
Iowa Code 335.2 states that county zoning cannot be enforced against “land, farm houses, farm barns, farm outbuildings or other buildings or structures which are primarily adapted, by reason of nature and area, for use for agricultural purposes, while so used.” This agricultural exemption has been the subject of court cases throughout the years focusing on what constitutes a “use for agricultural purposes.” Despite the lessons provided by these cases, county officials still wrestle with many unanswered questions about the interpretation of section 335.2. One of the most vexing issues has been rural acreages and large-lot rural subdivisions. Is the owner of a five-acre residence who has a job in the nearby city qualified for the exemption if he raises an acre or two of crops or a few head of livestock?
On March 29 the Iowa Supreme Court decided Lang v. Linn County Board of Adjustment, in which the Court reviewed two separate decisions by the county to deny exemptions for two separate parcels: a 6.52-acre parcel that included the Langs’ residence, and a 43.3-acre parcel with 2 houses. While the case does not definitively answer the exemption question for every rural acreage, it does provide several helpful guidelines for county officials going forward.
The Court began by pointing out the differences between the language of section 335.2 as it appears today, and as it was prior to amendments made in 1963. The differences were critical to the Court’s reasoning. Prior to 1963 the statute was concerned with land, farm houses and buildings “which are adapted, by reason of nature and area, for use for agricultural purposes as a primary means of livelihood, while so used.” Thus, prior to 1963 the statute did not contain the word “primarily,” (“primarily adapted”) but did tie the exemption to use for agricultural purposes “as a primary means of livelihood” for the landowner.
In the Court’s view, the addition of the word “primarily” allows county zoning authorities to consider “the relative size, value, and construction date of the house compared to the scope, value, and duration of the claimed agricultural activities,” and deny the exemption when the agricultural activities “are basically a sideline designed to obtain an agricultural zoning exemption for the owners’ residence.” For the Langs’ residence on 6.52-acres, the Court determined that it was a “a residential tail wagging a farmland dog and that the property as a whole was not primarily dedicated to agriculture.” Although the Langs claimed in their exemption filing to be producing trees, raspberries, blackberries, asparagus, apples, grapes, and tomatoes, they provided no records of production or sales. Photographs indicated that the asparagus, grape vines and raspberry bushes, at least, were wild and in a wooded thicket. The Court did not believe that “the legislature intended to allow a homeowner to avoid county zoning requirements simply by having a tomato patch in his or her backyard.”
The Langs also claimed that the county improperly applied a minimum acreage test and flunked the Langs’ 6.52-acre parcel simply because it was too small. Previous cases have held that a county cannot use parcel size as the sole measure for determining whether a parcel is primarily adapted for agriculture; however, in Lang the Court affirmed that parcel size can be one of the factors considered when making the determination, stating that “if size were not relevant, then nothing could prevent a developer from obtaining a zoning exemption for an entire development subdivided into half-acre lots so long as some agricultural product were planted in the development and tended by the homeowners.”
Because the Linn County Zoning Ordinance prohibits more than one dwelling on a single undivided parcel of land, the Langs sought an exemption for a second house built on a 43.3-acre tract, claiming that the occupant (the Langs’ son) would be performing farming tasks on the property. The county did not dispute that the 43.3 acres should be considered agricultural, but disagreed that the second house was “primarily adapted” for agriculture since the son had a regular day job, and that he would be spending only 2 1/2-hours per day at most on farming activities. The Court sided with the county, stating that “it is appropriate for the county to ask how much time the tenants of the house spend on farming activities. Otherwise, a farmer could erect multiple homes and avoid county zoning simply by assigning nominal farm tasks to an occupant of each home.” Implicit in the Court’s reasoning is that although a landowner no longer must show that the property is his “primary means of livelihood,” the landowner must be able to closely tie the activities of the person occupying the house to the agricultural production taking place on the property.
The Court concluded with a common-sense observation of how misapplying the exemption to rural acreages has the potential to cause problems in the future: “When a house has been erected by taking advantage of an agricultural exemption, but then is later sold to a person who is not engaged in agriculture, the house becomes a nonconforming use, which limits the new owner’s ability to modify or, if necessary, to rebuild the house.”
]]>City of Okoboji v. Leo Parks and Okoboji Barz, Inc.
(Iowa Supreme Court, April 26, 2013)
If you have attended one of my workshops you know that this ongoing dispute is one of my favorite discussion topics. This is another case in the the efforts of the City of Okoboji to enforce zoning restrictions on properties owned by Okoboji Barz (Okoboji Boat Works, The Fish House Lounge, and Clucker’s Broasted Chicken), all located on the shore of West Lake Okoboji. The lakefront property is zoned residential, but has been historically operated as a marina pursuant to special-use permits allowing the preexisting nonconforming uses. In a series of previous cases (City of Okoboji v. Okoboji Barz, Inc., 717 N.W.2d 310, 315–16 (Iowa 2006); City of Okoboji v. Iowa District Court, 744 N.W.2d 327, 332 (Iowa 2008)) the Iowa Supreme Court has held that while the use of the property as a marina is lawful under the special-use permits, the permits do not allow an expansion of the use to include on-premises consumption of alcohol with live entertainment, karaoke, hog roasts, and full-moon parties.
“Undeterred” (in the words of the Supreme Court), “the owner of the property sought to operate a bar on a structure called the Fish House Lounge, which, while generally moored to the marina’s ‘seawall,’ is capable of getting underway on the lake.” The Fish House Lounge has a class “D” liquor license obtained from the state, and not the City, based upon the state’s control of the lake bed. The City objected to the operation of the Fish House Lounge as contrary to the holdings of the Supreme in the previously-cited cases and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The district court found that the Fish House Lounge cannot cruise the lake during winter months, has no regular cruise schedule, and is rarely seen cruising the lake. Patrons are asked to use the restroom facilities on the marina property. It offers live and recorded entertainment, hosts theme parties, karaoke, and other activities as late as midnight. The district court concluded that the activities at the Fish House Lounge were the very activities prohibited by the Supreme Court in the previous cases, and entered an injunction prohibiting use of the marina property to “provide parking, access to or from, and supporting services, including bathroom facilities, to patrons of a boat, vessel, or structure on which alcohol is served or upon which entertainment, music, karaoke, abandon-ship parties, or howl-at-the-moon parties are provided.’ The injunction further prohibited the selling or serving of alcohol, wine, and beer on any boat or structure moored to or attached to the marina and on or from any boat or structure attached to a dock extending from the premises. The property owner appealed.
The broad question before the Supreme Court was “whether our prior rulings can be avoided by moving the locus of prohibited activity onto a floating pontoon structure that is located above the state-owned lake bed and outside the geographic boundaries of the City, but which utilizes the upland marina property for ingress, egress, parking, and restroom facilities.” The property owner argued several points. First, that the City cannot exercise its zoning authority over the Fish House Lounge because the Lounge is floating over the lake bed when it is moored to the marina’s seawall, and that this could only lead to one of two results: (1) The state owns the lake bed in its sovereign capacity, and under various statutes other state agencies – and not the City – are responsible for lake bed activities, or (2) the boundary line of the City is the mean high water mark of the lake, which the Fish House Lounge sits below when moored to the marina. Second, that the Fish House Lounge activities were merely accessory to the permitted use of operating a marina.
The Supreme Court dispensed with all of these arguments. Contrary to the owner’s arguments, the City did not claim the authority to zone over the lake bed; rather, it was asserting jurisdiction only over the upland real property, and the use of the real property for ingress and egress to the Fish House Lounge, to provide parking for patrons of the Fish House Lounge, and to provide restroom facilities for patrons of the Fish House Lounge is inconsistent with the preexisting nonconforming use of the property for marina operations. In the 2006 case the Court held that activities similar to those conducted at the Fish House Lounge could not be considered “merely an accessory use to the operation of the marina.”
Prior to 1972 [when zoning was enacted], the property was used for operating marinas. The marinas were open between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., with the gas dock occasionally staffed until 8:00 p.m. As the district court noted, there was no evidence that, prior to 1972 when the City enacted its zoning ordinance, the property was used to provide nearly permanent mooring for a liquor establishment, to provide restroom facilities for patrons of such an establishment, or to provide parking for such use. Since 2008, however, the marina property has been providing access to a floating bar that stays open at night…. While it is true that the main platform upon which liquor is sold and loud activities occur is above the lake bed, it is obvious the activities of the Fish House Lounge are inextricably intertwined with the use of the real property subject to the City’s zoning restrictions. The use of the property for ingress and egress, for restroom facilities, and for parking to a floating bar moored at the marina are not accessory uses to the valid, nonconforming use of the marina. These uses of the upland real estate are also in violation of section 2(B)(2) of article VII of the City’s zoning ordinance, which prohibits such lakeshore lots from being used for access to commercial activities.
The Supreme Court agreed that an injunction was appropriate to prevent the use of the marina to support the activities of the Fish House Lounge. Providing access, parking, and restroom facilities has had an adverse impact on the residential character of the waterfront. The Supreme Court refused to enjoin the the provision of or sale of liquor on boats when moored at the docks (versus those moored directly to the shoreline); noting, however, that “this distinction makes little difference as the City has shown entitlement to an injunction that prohibits using the upland to provide ingress, egress, parking, or restroom facilities to patrons of boats or similar vessels selling alcohol or engaging in bar-type activities while docked at the marina.”
]]>
Joseph P. Stanislaw v. Thetford Township
(Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 20, 2013)
In July 1983, Joseph and Lorraine Stanislaw submitted a “vehicle dealer supplemental location license application” to sell used cars in Thetford Township, Michigan. The township’s zoning ordinance required that automobile sales be conducted inside an enclosure, so the planning commission ordered the Stanislaws to construct such an enclosure in 30 days. In April 1984, a neighbor, Daniel Case, complained about the Stanislaws’ property. So Joseph Stanislaw appeared before the Planning Commission in May 1984 and August 1984 and received approval of a a plan that included an enclosing fence. Thetford Township approved a new zoning ordinance in 1989, and the Stanislaws’ business was grandfathered in as a previously approved non-conforming use.
In September 2005, Case complained to the Township that the Stanislaws’ property was a junk yard. In 2004, Michigan passed an act that required car dealers to obtain “written verification from the appropriate governing or zoning authority that the established place of business meets all applicable municipal and zoning requirements” prior to any license renewal. So in December 2005, Lorraine Stanislaw submitted the necessary form to renew the car dealership’s license. The Thetford Township Building Inspector, Mark Angus, inspected the property before signing. He refused to sign the Stanislaws’ forms concluding that the fence was in poor condition and that the property was “an auto graveyard.”
The Stanislaws submitted the license-renewal form to Michigan anyway. The state ordered the Stanislaws to fix their incomplete application by January 31, 2006. On January 24, 2006, the Stanislaws met with Angus, the Township Supervisor (Luther Hatchett) and the Police Chief (Thomas Kulcher). Lorraine Stanislaw testified that the Township said that they would revisit their application if the fence was restored and the cars were moved out of view. So Angus wrote a letter to the state asking for an extension to allow the Stanislaws more time to comply with the zoning ordinances. Joseph Stanislaw made the repairs to the fence. Hatchett sent Chief Kulcher to inspect the property. Kulcher refused to sign the form because he found that vehicles were still sitting out front on the property.
In February 2006, the Planning Commission passed a motion, requiring the Stanislaws to construct a 6-foot-tall fence on the property. The Stanislaws wanted to appeal this motion to the Zoning Board of Appeals, but Chief Kulcher supposedly told them that they could not. Kulcher denied saying this, testifying that he did not know anything about zoning appeals procedures. The Stanislaws instead filed this action in federal district court; however, the district court determined that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to consider the Stanislaws’ claim that the Thetford Township’s decision constituted a taking. This is because the Stanislaws did not give the state court the opportunity to adjudicate the issue of whether or not the State failed to provide just compensation.
The Stanislaws never appealed in state court Angus’ denial or the ZBA’s acceptance of Angus’ denial and order to construct a fence. The Stanislaws partly claim that they failed to the December 2005 ZBA vote because Chief Kulcher had told them that they could not. According to the federal district court, the Stanislaws provided no legal support that this would have excused them from their failure to appeal the ZBA’s decision. “Chief Kulcher is not familiar with appellate zoning procedures; however, the Stanislaws are quite familiar having dealt with the local zoning regulations on their property over the past two decades.”
The 6th Circuit Court agreed with the district court that the Stanislaws’ failed to exhaust their state administrative remedies. “if a State provides an adequate procedure for seeking just compensation, the property owner cannot claim a violation of the Just Compensation Clause until it has used the procedure and been denied just compensation.” The Stanislaws argued that their claim was to be left alone to continue to do what they have been doing to earn a living for decades – not a taking of real estate, but rather their business interests. The court held that the Stanislaws’ claim encompassed “some sort of ill-defined Fifth Amendment takings claim.” The Court disagreed with the assertion that the Stanislaws did not raise a takings claim; and agreed with the district court that the claim was not ripe for federal review.
The Stanislaws’ other claims, according to the Court, were “somewhat jumbled and poorly explained” and “abstractly involved” procedural due process, substantive due process, and equal protection. They did not cite any case law that suggested a hearing would have been required for a decision to sign or not sign the license-approval form. Rather, the Stanislaws “had numerous hearings and opportunities over the course of two decades to remedy their non-conforming use of the property.” If a decision had been made without appropriate process, the correct recourse still would have been first to the state courts, not the federal courts. As for the equal protection claim, The Stanislaws “failed to identify any similarly situated businesses who were actually treated differently,” Thus the 6th Circuit Court affirmed the district court’s judgment.
]]>US Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of LaVista
(Nebraska Supreme Court, March 29, 2013)
In 1969, the owner of a 210-acre parcel in Sarpy County petitioned the Sarpy County Board of Commissioners to designate the tract as an industrial area and the board complied. Under Nebraska law an industrial area is land “used or reserved for the location of industry.” At the time of the designation, La Vista’s zoning jurisdiction did not reach any part of the parcel; therefore the city’s approval was not required. US Cold Storage acquired four lots in the industrial area in 1971 and has operated its business there since that time. Sanitary and Improvement District (SID) 59 was created in 1971 to provide utilities and services to the industrial area. The area of SID 59 is greater than, but includes, the entire industrial area. In October 2009 La Vista resolved to annex SID 59. It sent written notices to the property owners within SID 59 of an October 22 city planning commission public hearing on the proposed annexation. On November 3, La Vista sent written notice to the property owners within SID 59 of a November 17 city council hearing also regarding the annexation of SID 59. On December 1, after conducting the public hearings, La Vista approved an ordinance purporting to annex SID 59 in its entirety.
On December 16, 2009, Cold Storage filed a class action complaint against La Vista and SID 59 challenging the validity of ordinance 1107. The complaint alleged that ordinance 1107 was invalid because (1) La Vista failed to comply with statutory notice requirements when adopting it, (2) the annexation was for revenue purposes only, and (3) state law prohibited the annexation of the industrial area in SID 59.
On January 18, 2011, while Cold Storage’s challenge to the validity of ordinance 1107 was pending in district court, La Vista directed its planning commission to consider the annexation of only a portion of SID 59; specifically, that portion that did not include the industrial area. On April 19, after giving proper statutory notice of this proposed annexation, La Vista adopted an ordinance (ordinance 1142) purporting to annex the portion of SID 59 that did not include the industrial area. SID 59 filed a cross claim in the initial action, and asserted that ordinance 1142 was invalid. The district court found in favor of La Vista on all claims, and Cold Storage and SID 59 appealed.
Statutory notice claim. It was undisputed that the notices did not strictly comply with Neb. Rev. Stat. 19-5001 (one was 3 days late, another was 2 days early, along with minor errors). It was also undisputed that SID 59 had actual notice of the annexation proceedings. In siding with La Vista, the court relied on Neb. Rev. Stat. 19-5001(5), which only voids annexation decisions on notice grounds if the errors are “willful or deliberate.”
Annexation for revenue purposes. Caselaw in Nebraska proscribes annexation for revenue purposes only. The court rejected the notion that because the SID was completely built out the city would be incurring no liabilities. The court referred to La Vista’s required annexation plan, which identified the street and sewer improvements the city would become responsible for in the event of annexation, and the the additional police staff needed to patrol the area. The city’s finance manager testified that the city would also assume all debts and obligations of SID 59, including approximately $2.1 million in net bonded debt. The court concluded that although revenue was a factor, but other factors included the indebtedness which the city would assume, the city’s objective of orderly growth, and the perception that annexation of SID 59, which was already surrounded by the city, would improve the provision of services by eliminating jurisdictional issues.
Prohibition against annexation of industrial area. Prior to 1991, Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-1115 only permitted the annexation of an industrial area under two circumstances (neither of which applied in this case); however, in 1991 the law was amended to allow annexation if the industrial area “is located in a county with a population in excess of 100,000 persons and the city did not approve the original designation of the tract as an industrial area.” The court found that both conditions were met in this case. Cold Storage contended that because La Vista could not have annexed the area prior to 1991, a vested right existed to continue the operation of SID 59 without annexation. The court noted that the true nature of the vested right claimed by Cold Storage was the “benefit” of lower taxes accruing from not being subject to taxation by La Vista; however, the court cited numerous cases for the proposition that exemption from taxation is not a vested right. “We find nothing in the language of the pre-1991 version of Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-1115 which would constitute a pledge by the Legislature that the circumstances under which property in an industrial area could be annexed would never be altered by an amendment to the statute.”
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court on all issues.
]]>Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc. v. City of Warren, Michigan
(Federal 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, February 25, 2013)
For the past several years between Thanksgiving and New Year’s, the City of Warren, Michigan has put up a holiday display in its civic center, which includes both secular and religious symbols, such as a lighted tree, reindeer, wreaths, snowmen, a mailbox for Santa, a “Winter Welcome” sign, and a nativity scene. In 2010, the Freedom from Religion Foundation and one of its members, Douglas Marshall, wrote letters asking Mayor James Fouts to remove the nativity scene, which the City refused. So in 2011, the Foundation instead asked the City to add the Foundation’s sign with the following words: “At this season of THE WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, [n]o heaven or hell. There is only our natural world, [r]eligion is but [m]yth and superstition [t]hat hardens hearts [a]nd enslaves minds…State/Church KEEP THEM SEPARATE.” The City refused again via a letter from Mayor Fouts, so the Foundation filed a lawsuit based on the freedom-from-establishment and free-speech guarantees of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court rejected these claims, so the Foundation appealed to the U.S. 6th Circuit Court.
In the letter, Mayor Fouts wrote:
“When I allowed a display in city hall celebrating Ramadan, the Moslem holy season, I received many calls objecting but I would never have allowed a sign next to the Ramadan display mocking or ridiculing the Moslem religion. In my opinion, Freedom of Religion does not mean “Freedom Against or From Religion.” [...] Your non-religion is not a recognized religion. Please don’t hide behind the cloak of non-religion as an excuse to abuse other recognized religions. You can’t make a negative into a positive. Clearly, your proposed display in effect would create considerable ill will among many people of all recognized faiths. During this holiday season, why don’t we try to accomplish the old adage of ‘Good will toward all’?”
Village of North Hudson v. Randy J. Krongard
(Wisconsin Court of Appeals, March 12, 2013)
In November of 2011, the Village of North Hudson issued 2 citations to Randy Krongard for having 2 junk vehicles in plain view on his property, which was contrary to North Hudson Village Ordinance §§ 90-41 and 90-44. The vehicles were considered junk vehicles because they had expired registrations. In December, Krongard pleaded not guilty in municipal court; however, he did not appear at the scheduled trial, so the court entered default judgment against him. In March of 2012, Krongard moved to vacate the municipal court’s judgment because “90-44 is void, unlawful, and invalid as preempted, contrary to, and inconsistent with” Wisconsin state law. His motion was denied. Krongard appealed to the circuit court, which also denied his motion, and then to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. The Village argued that Krongard’s appeal was an improper one because Krongard should be prohibited from appealing a default judgment. However, Krongard appealed the order denying his motion to vacate the default judgment. So Krongard’s appeal was properly before the circuit court and the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Before the court, Krongard argued that the circuit court wrongly denied his motion because the judgment against him was void, since the Village’s junk vehicle ordinance was invalid based on its conflict with state traffic regulations. An ordinance regarding traffic regulation “must be in strict conformity with state law,” otherwise it will be preempted. Krongard asserted the conflict stemmed from the ordinance’s defining unregistered vehicles as junk vehicles and regulating unregistered vehicles on private property. Wis. Stat. § 340.01(25j) does not include unregistered vehicles in its definition of a “junk vehicle.” Instead it defines a “junk vehicle” as a “vehicle which is incapable of operation or use upon a highway and which has no resale value except as a source of parts or scrap” and a “vehicle for which an insurance company has taken possession of or title to if the estimated cost of repairing the vehicle exceeds its fair market value.” Also, state traffic regulations allow for vehicles to be parked on private property with the owner’s consent and only permit municipalities to regulate unregistered vehicles on highways. So Krongard held that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals must conclude the ordinance is invalid, rendering his judgment void.
The Village counter-argued that the state traffic regulations are concerned “with the licensing, regulation of, outfitting and operation of vehicles” and its ordinance is “concerned with the upkeep of private property,” which are “two completely different issues.” The Village also contended that its junk vehicle ordinance is not inconsistent with or contrary to the state’s definition of a junk vehicle. The Village argued that, under Wis. Stat. § 340.01(25j), a vehicle is junk if it is not capable of legal operation on the highway, and an unregistered vehicle is incapable of legal operation on the highway and therefore constitutes a junk vehicle. Finally, the Village contended that parking motor vehicles is different than storing vehicles on private property.
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals concluded that nothing in the state traffic regulations provides that a municipality can regulate unregistered vehicles on private property and that Wis. Stat. § 340.01(25j) defines a junk vehicle as one that is inoperable, not legally inoperable. Therefore, the Village’s definition was broader than the traffic regulation. The ordinance requires owners of junk vehicles to notify and return the vehicle’s certificate of title to the Department of Transportation, but requires owners of unlicensed vehicles to keep their vehicles out of the public’s view. As such, the Village’s argument regarding the purpose of the ordinance and the ordinance’s language itself suggest that the ordinance is not a traffic regulation and the Village did not enact it pursuant to the power granted under the state traffic regulations. Instead, it appears the ordinance may have been enacted using a different power, such as its zoning authority. However, because it could not be determined from the record whether the ordinance in question was a traffic regulation or part of a different regulatory scheme, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the order to the circuit court to determine the validity of the Village’s ordinance.
]]>