1 / 30

EUCLIDEAN (USE) ZONING

EUCLIDEAN (USE) ZONING. Residence, Business, Industry, subdivided many times What was Euclid’s zoning scheme? U 1 uses? U 3 uses? U 6 uses? Note Cumulative feature. EUCLIDEAN (USE) ZONING. The Zoning Pyramid: the highest use. Single family 2 family Apts, hosp, clubs Offices, retail

donna-tran
Télécharger la présentation

EUCLIDEAN (USE) ZONING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. EUCLIDEAN (USE) ZONING • Residence, Business, Industry, subdivided many times • What was Euclid’s zoning scheme? • U 1 uses? U 3 uses? U 6 uses? • Note Cumulative feature

  2. EUCLIDEAN (USE) ZONING The Zoning Pyramid: the highest use Single family 2 family Apts, hosp, clubs Offices, retail Laundries, stables, billboards Sewage plants, dumps, prisons U 1 U 2 U 3 U 4 U 5 U 6

  3. EUCLID • How was Ambler’s land zoned? • Why was it zoned that way? • What effect on value? • What was the overall zoning plan of the city?

  4. Nickel Plate Railroad E A S T 196th E A S T 204th U - 6 U - 3 U - 2 Euclid Avenue U - 1

  5. Nickel Plate Railroad E A S T 196th Why ? E A S T 204th U - 6 U - 3 U - 2 Euclid Avenue U - 1

  6. Nickel Plate Railroad E A S T 196th Effect? E A S T 204th U - 6 U - 3 U - 2 Euclid Avenue U - 1

  7. AMBLER’S LEGAL CHALLENGE • How did zoning offend the constitution? • What is said to be wrong with zoning? • What is Court’s test? • Note the standard of review. • How does nuisance law help?

  8. The “serious question” . . . • Apartments are “mere parasites.” • Synonym’s for parasite: bloodsucker, leech, loafer, mooch . . . • If apartments are parasites, what are the people who live in them?

  9. What is wrong with apartments? • Nothing . . . Just not here . . . pig in barnyard, not parlor, • Apartments “deprive children of privilege of quiet and open space for play.” p. 27

  10. CAN YOU IMAGINE “A MORE UNLIKELY ENSEMBLE OF JUDGES TO UPHOLD SUCH RESTRICTIONS ON PROPERTY”? Explain Comment

  11. From 1885 to 1922, the Court upheld • a San Francisco ordinance restricting the hours of operation of laundries in certain locations (1885), • an ordinance designating certain areas of a city for prostitution (1900), • a statute setting height limitations in the City of Boston (1909), • an ordinance precluding further burials in existing cemeteries • an ordinance excluding stables from a commercial districta Los Angeles regulation that precluded the operation of an existing brickyard within an area zoned to exclude them, • an ordinance prohibiting signs in residential neighborhoods unless neighbors consented, and • an ordinance that precluded the storage of oil and gasoline within 300 feet of a dwelling house

  12. In the same period, the Court invalidated • an ordinance prohibiting laundries in wooden buildings unless permission was obtained from the Board of Supervisors, where it was applied exclusively against Chinese. (1888) • an ordinance allowing neighbors to establish setback lines (1912), • held invalid race-based zoning (1917), • a state statute that banned underground coal mining where it would cause subsidence of homes (1922)

  13. After Euclid in the 1920s, the Court • Invalidated Cambridge zoning ordinance (1926) • But it upheld: • excluding business from residential zone even tho in path of development (1927) • setback ordinance (1927) • destruction of private cedar trees to protect another, who had apple trees(1928)

  14. Telegram Received Day After Euclid Opinion Announced • Dear Supreme Court Justices: • Please send us ASAP a copy of the opinion. • Sincerely, • Attorney for The White People’s Protective League • Indianapolis, Indiana

  15. Nectow v. City of Cambridge Recovering from its ideological lapse in Euclid ? . . .

  16. What was Nectow’s problem? • What is the test Court uses? • What options did the city have?

  17. 1 8 15 Brookline St. 2 9 16 3 17 10 4 18 11 5 12 19 Nectow’s property 6 13 20 Henry St. 7 14

  18. Couldn’t city just as easily put line down middle of street? • “No reason” to do what city did.

  19. 1 8 15 Brookline St. Couldn’t city just as easily have put line down the middle of the street? 2 9 16 3 17 10 4 18 11 5 12 19 6 13 20 Henry St. 7 14

  20. 1 8 15 Brookline St. A nice straight line that would leave Mr. Nectow alone. 2 9 16 3 17 10 4 18 11 5 12 19 6 13 20 Henry St. 7 14

  21. 1 8 15 Brookline St. 2 9 16 3 17 10 Or just extend The line a little Further on Henry Before heading south 4 18 11 5 12 19 6 13 20 Henry St. 7 14

  22. Why is it unconstitutional to zone this parcel residential? • What is test Court uses? • Compare to Euclid’s fairly debatable test

  23. Cambridge zoning map 2002 Cambridge, Mass. Zoning map, 2002

  24. After Euclid & Nectow in the 1920s, the Court upheld: • excluding business from residential zone even though in path of development (1927) • setback ordinance (1927) • destruction of private cedar trees to protect apple orchards (1928)

  25. Herbert Hoover’sStandard Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA)

  26. SZEA, Section 3 • Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan . . .

  27. UDELL V. HAAS • Exemplifies what planning is supposed to be . . . [and what it’s not]

  28. IF DONE CORRECTLY • First, you plan • Second, you zone according to plan • Then, landowners can themselves plan, bringing predictability

  29. Majority Rule: don’t have to have a “plan” and if do, need not follow it. • Modified (Udell) Majority Rule: don’t have to have a “plan,” but absence of one may cause court to be suspect; furthermore, if you do have a “plan,” you must follow it. • Emerging Rule: A “plan” is mandatory and must contain certain elements.

More Related