Land Use Regulation Cases

Mistakenly-issued approvals do not bind a local zoning authority.

Land use may be regulated for aesthetic purposes.

Denial of conditional use permit must be based on concrete, factual evidence.

Distinction between legislative and administrative functions.

Authority to enact zoning ordinances.

Mistaken characterization does not establish zoning estoppel.

Estoppel, waiver, or laches generally not available as a defense, except in exceptional circumstances.

Discusses criteria for variances.

Validity of zoning ordinances.

Mere ownership or purchase of land does not constitute a substantial change in position sufficient enough to invoke zoning estoppel.

Validity of inspection fees.

Decision to grant or deny a conditional use application must be based upon substantial evidence; consent of neighbors may not be a requirement for a conditional use permit.

Zoning estoppel only available in extraordinary circumstances.

When “zoning estoppel” may be established.

Rebutting a presumption of abandonment of a nonconforming use.

Land uses may be regulated to promote public welfare.

Denial of conditional use permit may not be based solely on adverse public comments, but must be based on substantial evidence.

All required criteria must be met for a zoning variance

Zoning authorities given wide latitude of discretion. Equitable defenses for zoning ordinance only available in exceptional circumstances.