Recent developments in comprehensive planning law

Urban Lawyer

Volumn 43, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 823-837

  Sullivan, Edward J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

LAND USE; PLANNING LEGISLATION; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; URBAN PLANNING; WETLAND; ZONING SYSTEM;

UNITED STATES;

EID: 84859839148     PISSN: 00420905     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (27)

1. ADVISORY COMM. ON ZONING, U.S. DEP'T OF COMMERCE, A STANDARD STATE ZONING ENABLING ACT UNDER WHICH MUNICIPALITIES MAY ADOPT ZONING REGULATIONS (rev. ed. 1926), available at http://www.smrpc.org/workshops/ ZBA%20Workshop%20April%2029%202009/ A%20Standard%20State%20Zoning%20Enabling%20Act,%201926.pdf.
2. Edward J. Sullivan & Laurence Kressel, Twenty Years After: Renewed Significance of the Comprehensive Plan Requirement, 9 URB. LAW. 33 (1975);
3. Charles Haar, In Accordance with a Comprehensive Plan, 68 HARV. L. REV. 1154 (1955) (examining the effectiveness of this statutory requirement, concluding that, notwithstanding the text, the appellate courts of most states neither required a separate plan, nor required conformity of zoning regulations to any plan that was adopted).
4. Charles Haar, The Master Plan: An Impermanent Constitution, 20 LAW & CONTEMP. PROBS. 353 (1955).
5. CONN. GEN. STAT. § 8-2-2 (2009).
6. *3.
7. *6.
8. *11 (citation and internal quotation omitted) (quoting Konigsberg v. Bd. of Aldermen, 930 A.2d 1, 9 (Conn. 2007)).
9. *14;
10. MINN. STAT. § 394.22 (2008);
11. MINN. STAT. § 394.23 (2008).
12. *6.
13. *13-20;
14. see also PA. CONS. STAT. § 1303(c) (2000).
15. See N.J. STAT. ANN. § 13:20-2 (West 2004).
16. *7.
17. Citizens Against Annexation, 226 P.3d at 716-17.
18. Edward J. Sullivan, Recent Developments in Comprehensive Planning Law, 42 URB. LAW. 665, 673 (2010).
19. See Florida Comprehensive Land Use Plans, Amendment 4, BALLOTPEDIA, http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Florida-Comprehensive-Land-Use-Plans, -Amendment-4-%282010%29 (last modified Apr. 15, 2011).
20. Id. In Montgomery v. City of Dunes City, respondent was found ineligible for the "small city exception" from meeting affordable housing needs when its own plan demonstrated that need. 236 P.3d 750 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
21. WASH. REV. CODE § 36.70A.010 (1990).
22. WASH. REV. CODE § 36.70C (1995).
23. Homebuilders Ass'n., 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 7.
24. CAL. PUB. RES. CODE §§ 30512(c), 30513 (West 2010).
25. Hines, 112 Cal. Rptr. 3d. at 369-71.
26. In Schiffenhaus v. Kline, defense of the values set forth in the local plan were sufficient to confer standing on the plaintiffs. No. 08 MISC 383621(GHP), 2010 WL 1424723 (Mass. Land Ct. Apr. 12, 2010).
27. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 519.02 (West 2006).