A very short one from the Connecticut Appellate Court, Santos v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. AC37281 (July 11, 2017) in a Penn Central-style takings challenge to local land use regulations. We’re going to set out the facts, then let you guess who prevailed.
The plaintiff purchased an unimproved parcel of land in Stratford
ALI-CLE has posted up the early bird registration page for the 2018 edition of the Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, to be held January 25-27, 2018 in an exciting new venue, Charleston, South Carolina.
We are putting the agenda and faculty together for the Conference (which, as always, will include the
Now that the dust has settled somewhat, for your weekend reading, here are your links to some of the vast amount of commentary which the Murr v. Wisconsin decision has thus far generated:
XXXXXXXXX
The Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, apparently has a problem of unregulated cemeteries. Who knew?
So it did what local government do when they think they have a problem, it passed a law. That law, Ordinance 12-12-20-001, required owners of all cemeteries, public or private, to maintain them. The ordinance also contained two troublesome provisions.
Winter storms damaged a seawall which protected a blufftop, oceanfront home. The owners, not surprisingly, wanted to rebuild the wall to protect their home. The Coastal Commission, as is its wont, saw this as an opportunity to extract some goodies from the owners. So it granted a limited-term permit to rebuild the wall, conditioned on
Here are links to the cases and materials we spoke about today during our portions of the APA’s 2017 Planning Law Review webinar:
If my colleagues don’t wise up and change their minds before August, I am slated to become Chair of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law (which, by the way, includes an Eminent Domain Committee, Chaired by Howard Roston, and co-Chaired by Kelly Walsh and John Peloso). On Friday, August 11, at
There’s a lot of buzz about “what’s next” after Murr v. Wisconsin, and what this case may augur for regulatory takings. There are already quite a few discussions and analysis panels scheduled, including these three in which we’re participating:
Here’s the opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court in a case we’ve been following, Barton v. City of Norwalk, No. SC 19671 (July 4, 2017).
As we noted in our earlier post where we detailed the facts, the case involved two non-contiguous parcels, one of which was used for a parking lot