PLAN 724 Introduction to Law for Planners

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "PLAN 724 Introduction to Law for Planners"

Alexander Holland
5 years ago
Views:

1 PLAN 724 Introduction to Law for Planners University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Department of City and Regional Planning Fall 2015 Syllabus David J. Brower 1 Office Location PLAN 724 New East 205 9:30-10:45am brower@ .unc.edu Tuesdays and Thursdays Hanes Art Center 218 Office Hours By Appointment Course Description This course examines the legal framework within which urban planning and development takes place. This includes the nature of law, the allocation of authority between institutions, public and private, the nature of real property as well as the practice of managing urban development, cultural resources and the natural environment. Special emphasis is given to current issues such as RLUIPA, Reed v. Gilbert ( ), the Clean Water Rule ( ), the Chesapeake TMDL ( ), the Clean Power Plan ( ), Climate Change and perhaps others as they unfold. COURSE SCHEDULE Session 1 August 18th I. Introduction LUP 1-12 Session 2 & 3 August 20 th, 25 th II. Background Burn A. The Law and the Courts 1. The Law: Defined a. The regime that orders human activities through systematic application of the force of politically organized society b. The aggregate of legislation, judicial precedents, and accepted legal principle; the body of authoritative grounds for judicial and administrative actions (1) Constitution (2) Statutes (3) Regulations (4) Judicial decisions (5) Executive Orders: Presidential Directives; signing statements (6) Guidance c. A set of rules or principles dealing with a specific area of the legal system (1) Civil (2) Criminal (3) Torts (4) Real Property (5) Environmental (6) Constitutional (7) Local Governments (8) Land Use

2 d. The judicial and administrative process; legal action and proceedings 2. Legal Materials 3. The Courts B. Institutional Framework and Relationships LGL Chap 1-8, Federal Government 2. State Government 3. Regional Government 4. Local Government a. Relationship with state government (1) Incorporation (2) Dillon s Rule (3) Enabling Acts (4) Home Rule b. Types of local governments (1) County (2) Municipal (3) Township (4) Special District c. Organization of Local Government (1) Legislative body (2) Executive and staff (3) Boards and commissions d. Boundaries (1) Corporate limits (2) Annexation (3) Extra-territorial jurisdiction e. Relationship with federal government f. Relationship with regional and other local governments 5. Non-Governmental Organizations 6. Private Organizations 7. Institutional Hierarchy a. Site b. Structure c. Subdivision d. Neighborhood e. Special District f. Municipal Corporation g. County h. Special Authority i. Metropolitan Area j. Region k. State l. Nation m. International Session 4 & 5 August 27 th, September 1 st C. Land Ownership Sing The relationship of human beings one with another and their individual and collective relationship with the land 2. Systems of land ownership a. Customary land (tribal, familial, communal) (1) Whose cave is this anyway? 2

3 (3) Who gets to sit closest to the fire? (4) Who has to clean up afterwards? b. Feudal: Hapless baby George and the future of Downton Abbey c. Land Tenure d. Anthroprocentric: statutory law e. Ecocentric values (intrinsic value) (1) Thomas Berry (2) Tribe, Sax, Singer, Freyfogle, Stone, Purdy (3) Earth Law, Wild Law, Animal Rights 3. Real Property Law in the United States a. Introduction (1) Real Property: Definition & Dimensions (2) The Right to Exclude Sing (a) The Civil Rights Act of 1964 Sing (b) The Americans with Disabilities Act Sing (3) Personal Property Sing b. Relationships Among Neighbors (1) Nuisance Sing (2) Water Sing (3) Support Sing (4) Light and Air Sing (5) Adverse Possession Sing (6) Easements (a) Introduction Sing (b) Express Easements Sing (c) Implied Easements Sing 186 (d) Prescriptive Easements Sing (e) Easements of Necessity (7) Covenants (a) Introduction Sing (b) Public Policy Sing c. Common Types of Ownership (1) Introduction Sing (2) Fee Simple Sing (3) Life Estates Sing 313 (4) Trusts Sing (5) Public Trust Doctrine Sing d. Concurrent Ownership Sing 352 e. Family Property Sing f. Leaseholds Sing g. Real Estate Transactions (1) Introduction Sing (2) Recording Sing h. American Indian Property Sing i. Water Sing (1) Stream and River Water (a) Preferred Use (b) Natural Flow Doctrine (c) Reasonable Use Doctrine (d) Appropriation Systems (2) Surface Water (a) Common Enemy Doctrine 3

4 Session 6 (b) Natural Servitude Doctrine (c) Reasonable Use Doctrine (3) Underground Water (a) Absolute Ownership (b) Reasonable Use Doctrine (c) Appropriation (4) Littoral Rights (5) Water per se is owned only after it has been taken from a stream or lake September 3 rd THE STORY III. Approaches to Managing Urban Development A. Characteristics of Development 1. Quantity 2. Location 3. Bulk 4. Timing 5. Quality 6. Appearance 7. Impact 8. Scale B. Management Objectives/Values 1. Economic 2. Aesthetic 3. Tax Base 4. Environmental 5. Biodiversity 6. Greed 7. Quality of Life 8. Sustainable Development 9. Political Power C. Policy Options for Managing Development 1. Regulation 2. Acquisition 3. Taxation 4. Education 5. Spending D. Policy Strategies for Managing Development 1. Common law 2. Land Ownership 3. Statutory Law 4. Disclosure 5. Command and Control 6. Criminal Penalties 7. Civil Penalties 8. Cap and Trade 9. Social Funds 10. Incentives 11. Contracts and Spending 12. Investment E. Common Urban Development Management Policies 1. Zoning ordinance 4 Campbell-Mohn

5 2. Subdivision control ordinance 3. National Flood Insurance Program LUP 47 Session 7, 8, 9 September 8 th, 10 th, 15 th 5 IV. Constitutional Mandates and Admonitions Chem 1-32 A. Introduction LUP B. Authority (Federal) Chem The Power to Regulate Commerce LUP The Spending Power C. Authority (State) 1. Tenth Amendment a. Commerce b. Spending c. Police Power D. Mandates and Admonitions Chem Substantive Due Process LUP Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. LUP Nectow v. City of Cambridge 2. Procedural Due Process LUP Equal Protection City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center Village of Willowbrook v. Olech Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation Texas Dept. of Housing v Inclusive Communities ( ) 4. Fundamental Rights: Strict Scrutiny Chem Session 10 September 17 th 5. Taking LUP a. Eminent Domain Chem Poletown Neighborhood Council v City of Detroit LUP Wayne County v Hathcock Kelo v City of New London Private Property Rights Protection Act(s) Session 11 & 12 September 22 nd, 24 th b. Physical Invasion LUP Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV c. Regulatory Impact LUP Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City d. Essential Nexus LUP Nollan v. California Coastal Dolan v. City of Tigard Session 13 September 29 th e. Economic Impact LUP Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v.debenedictis f. Investment Backed Expectations LUP Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

6 g. Unit of Property LUP Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency h. Compensation LUP First English Evangelical Church v. County of Los Angeles Session 14 & 15 October 1 st, 6 th i. Ripeness LUP MacDonald v. Yolo County j. Taking Legislation LUP First Amendment a. Signs LUP Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego Linmark Assoc. v. Township of Willingboro City of Ladue v. Gilleo Reed v Town of Gilbert ( ) b. Sex Oriented Business City of Littleton v. Z. J. Gifts Young v. American Mini Theatres City of Renton v. Playtime Theatre c. Religion (1) Uses (2) Religious Freedom Restoration Act (3) Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act d. Skokie Parade 7. The Regional General Welfare LUP Save a Valuable Env t v. City of Bothell Session 16 October 8th 6 V. Managing Urban Development LUP A. Definition B. Rationale C. Legal Basis 1. Police Power (State) 2. Enabling Laws (Local) D. Typical Policies 1. Zoning a. Overview (1) The teeth of the zoning ordinance (2) How does zoning work? (a) Zone district map (b) District requirements (3) History of zoning (4) Authority to zone (5) Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (6) Types of regulations (a) Cumulative v. exclusive (b) Performance v. prescriptive (c) Of right v. administrative findings b. Zoning and the comprehensive plan (1) Standard State Zoning Enabling Act

7 (2) Standard State Planning Act (3) In Practice c. Zoning decision makers (1) Legislative (elected state and local officials) (2) Planning Commission (appointed) (3) Board of Adjustment / Board of Zoning Appeals (appointed) (4) Planning Department (employees) (5) Affected Parties (a) Development industry (b) Citizen participants (c) The community as a whole (d) The region d. Constitutional parameters of zoning LUP (1) Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.* (2) Nectow v. City of Cambridge* (3) Challenges: facial v. as applied Session 17 October 13 th e. District Requirements (1) Use (a) Residential (b) Single Family Use What is a family? Village of Belle Terre v. Boras Moore v. City of East Cleveland (c) Group Homes City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living Center* (d) Agricultural Uses (e) Commercial Uses (f) Industrial Uses (g) Accessory Uses (h) Buffer Zones (i) Public Uses: schools, hospitals, etc. (j) Religious Uses (i) Religious Freedom Restoration Act (ii) Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act Substantial Burden Compelling Governmental Interest Least Restrictive Means Equal Terms - Comparators FALL BREAK October 14 th Session 18, 19, 20 October 20 th, 22 nd, 27 th (2) Height LUP (3) Density (4) Yard Size (5) Floor-to-Area Ratio (6) Bulk LUP Teton County v. Crowe (7) Setback 7

8 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council* (8) Parking (9) Signs f. Flexibility LUP (1) Floating zones (2) Contract zoning/conditional zoning (3) Incentive zoning (4) Interim zones (5) Overlay zones g. Non-conforming Situations LUP Hadacheck v. Sebastian Los Angeles v. Gage h. Administrative, Legislative, or Quasi-judicial Action? LUP (1) Delegation to an administrative body (2) Delegation to property owners (3) Initiative and referendum City of Eastlake V. Forest City Enterprises Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community i. Rezoning: Amending the Ordinance LUP (1) Generally (2) Grounds for rezoning (3) Extraordinary majorities (4) Rezoning and the Comprehensive Plan (5) Spot zoning Bartram v. Zoning Commission j. Variances LUP (1) Use variances (2) Other variances k. Special Permits LUP Rockhill v. Township of Chesterfield l. Vested Rights LUP Parkview Associates v. City of New York City of Dallas v. Vanesko 49 TX Supreme Court 487 m. Development Agreements LUP n. Exclusionary Zoning LUP (1) The Americans with Disabilities Act (2) Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing* (3) Gautreaux v. Chicago Housing Authority In External Links (4) The Fair Housing Act Folder on Sakai Texas v. Inclusive Communities Project (5) Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing In External Links (6) Fisher v. University of Texas (Fall 2015) Folder on Sakai (7) Singapore Inclusionary Housing Policy LUP o. Frustrations with Traditional Zoning Subdivision Control, Official Maps and Planned Unit Development LUP a. Subdivision Control (1) Process (2) Design requirements (3) Exactions (4) Dedication (5) Plats (6) Documents 8

9 (7) Homeowners Associations b. Planned Unit Developments c. Official Maps 3. Utilities 4. Building Codes LUP Housing Codes 6. Moratoria Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency* 7. Ownership of Land LUP a. Fee Simple b. Less than Fee Simple (1) Easements (2) Covenants (3) Homeowner associations c. Transfer of Development Rights d. Land Banking e. Eminent Domain 8. Development Agreements LUP Economic Incentives Maready v. City of Winston-Salem 10. Panaceas (cures for whatever ails you including the common cold) Session 21, 22, 23 October 29 th, November 3 rd, 5 th VI. Managing Cultural Resources (See PAS Reports in Room 489/490 & 570) LUP A. Definition: Culture, Resources B. Rationale: Sax C. Legal Basis: Sax, Stone D. Built resources 1. Signs LUP Architecture LUP Berman v. Parker Reid v. Architectural Board of Review Cathedral of St. John the Divine 3. Historic Preservation LUP Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York Vestry of St. Bartholomew s Church v. City of New York 4. National Historic Preservation Act a. Historic Resources of National Interest b. National Register of Historic Places c. Section NEPA 6. Dept. of Transportation Act 7. Flora E. Landscape 1. Palisades, Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 2. Scenic vista (Nollan) 3. Adjacent Lands 4. View sheds: Boulder, Austin 5. Corridors 6. Ridge laws F. Community Design 1. New Urbanism 9

10 2. Form Based Zoning 3. Design Manuals 4. Bully Pulpit: Charleston, Columbus, Indiana Session 24 & 25 November 10 th, 12 th VII. MANAGING THE ENVIRONMENT EL&P A. Definition B. Rationale C. Legal Basis D. Policies 1. NEPA EL&P a. What does NEPA do? b. What does an EIS do? Calvert Cliffs v. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission c. When must an EIS be prepared? Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers d. NEPA Decision Making Process Chart 2. Air: The Clean Air Act EL&P a. NAAQS EL&P 115 (1) State Implementation Plans EL&P 118 (2) Non-Attainment EL&P 119 b. Climate Change EL&P 134 (1) Massachusetts, et al. v. EPA (2) Clean Power Rule ( ) (3) Oklahoma v. EPA (US District Court) (4) Michigan v EPA ( ) (5) COP21 Session 26 November 17 th 3. Water: The Clean Water Act EL&P a. Pollution EL&P 172 (1) Point Sources EL&P 179 (a) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits EL&P 180 (b) Publicly Owned Treatment Works (PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT EL&P 180 WORKS) (c) Industrial Point Source EL&P 182 (d) Existing Point Sources EL&P 184 (e) New Point Sources EL&P 185 (2) Non-Point Sources EL&P 189 (a) Section 208 (b) Section 319 (3) Water Quality Standards (a) Section 303 EL&P 194 (b) Impaired Waters (c) Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) EL&P 195 (d) Continuing Planning Process (CPP) EL&P 196 (e) Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load EL&P 195 (f) American Farm Bureau Federation et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al. (7.6.15) b. Wetlands (1) CWA Section 404 EL&P 277 (a) Waters of the United States EL&P

11 (i) 1972 Clean Water Act EL&P 279 (ii) 1975 Regulations EL&P 279 (iii) 1985 Migratory Bird Rule (iv) 2001 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) (v) 2006 Rapanos v. United States (vi) 2011 Draft Regulations (vii) 2015 Clean Water Rule (viii) 2015 Murray Energy Corp. v. EPA (b) Discharge EL&P 280 (c) Permitting EL&P 283, 285 Session 27 November 19 th 4. Biodiversity EL&P a. Endangered Species Act EL&P 287 (1) Federal Agency Activity (2) Section 7(a)(2) (3) TVA v. Hill EL&P 295 (4) Private Activity (5) Section 9(a)(1) EL&P 300 (6) Babbitt v. Sweet Home (7) Habitat Conservation Plans EL&P 303 b. Public Trust Doctrine EL&P 272 (1) Roman Law (2) European (3) Colonies (4) Northwest Ordinance of 1878 (5) SCOTUS: Illinois Central v. Illinois EL&P 272, 274 (6) CA: Marks v. Whitney EL&P 273 (7) Other States EL&P Natural Hazards LUP a. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) b. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) c. Hazard Mitigation Act of 2000 Session 28 November 24 th 6. Coastal Zone LUP a. Coastal Zone Management Act (1) State Coastal Management Programs (2) Implementation (3) Consistency b. Coastal Barrier Resources Act c. Ocean Policy 7. Energy EL&P THANKSGIVING BREAK November 25 th Session 29 December 1 st VIII. Last Class Key to s LUP: JURGENSMEYER & ROBERTS, LAND USE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONLAW THIRD EDITION 11

12 BURN: BURNHAM, LEGAL SYSTEM OF THE U.S. THIRD EDITION LGL: REYNOLDS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT LAW THIRD EDITION SING: SINGER, PROPERTY THIRD EDITION CHEM: CHEMERINSKY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW FOURTH EDITION EL&P: SALZMAN & THOMPSON, ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY FOURTH EDITION COPYRIGHT 2015 DAVID J BROWER 12

PLAN 724 FALL

PLAN 724 FALL 2014 6.21.2014 INTRODUCTION TO LAW FOR PLANNERS Class Outline, Schedule and Assigned Readings Department of City and Regional Planning University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill David J.