Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo

Last updated
Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo
Seal of the New York Court of Appeals.svg
Court New York Court of Appeals
Full case nameGolden v. The Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo
Decided23 July 1971
Citation(s)Golden v. Planning Board, Golden v. Ramapo, 37 A.D.2d 236 (N.Y. App. Div. 1971), 324 N.Y.S.2d 178
Case opinions
Concurrence John F. Scileppi

Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo was a landmark 1971 land-use planning case in New York that established growth management planning as a valid exercise of the police power in the United States.

Contents

Background

The Town of Ramapo, New York passed a zoning ordinance prohibiting development of a subdivision plat unless the property owners had a special permit, one of the early Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances. Permits were granted based on a point system based on available municipal facilities in the area of proposed development, with the intent of phasing development over the lifetime of the town's 18-year capital plan. Developers could meet the requirements to be granted a special permit by constructing their own infrastructure. [1] Property owner Ruth Golden and other plaintiffs, who either were denied approval of their subdivision plats because they had not applied for special permits or had never applied for platting because they were aware that they would not receive a special permit, [2] sued.

The New York Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's suit. This was reversed by the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, which found that control or regulation of population growth did not fall under the authorized uses of zoning. Ramapo appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Decision

The Court of Appeals confirmed that the State of New York's legislation enabled zoning phased growth. Writing for the court, Justice John F. Scileppi stated, "The restrictions conform to the community's considered land use policies as expressed in its comprehensive plan and represent a bona fide effort to maximize population density consistent with orderly growth." [3] The court further stated that, because the ordinance did not prevent eventual development, its restrictions did not comprise a taking.

Effects

The case, along with Berenson v. Town of New Castle , provided the foundation for the subsequent growth management movement in the United States. The system where individual municipalities manage growth, rather than it being managed at the state level, is sometimes referred to as "the Ramapo system." It is criticized for encouraging urban sprawl and for being effectively exclusionary in areas with limited developable land. [4] The New York Court of Appeals returned to this issue 20 years later in Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board of Brookhaven , where the appellate division required a cumulative environmental impact analysis over three towns for developments, which was seen as a threat to local land use authority. The Court of Appeals overturned the appellate division, disappointing environmentalists who had seen an opportunity for cumulative analysis for critical natural resource areas around the state. [5]

Golden v. Ramapo and Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. The City of Petaluma, California are the basis for the use of development impact fees to finance public infrastructure throughout the United States. [6]

Related Research Articles

Zoning Government policy allowing certain uses of land in different places

Zoning is a method of urban planning in which a municipality or other tier of government divides land into areas called zones, each of which has a set of regulations for new development that differs from other zones. Zones may be defined for a single use, they may combine several compatible activities by use, or in the case of form-based zoning, the differing regulations may govern the density, size and shape of allowed buildings whatever their use. The planning rules for each zone, determine whether planning permission for a given development may be granted. Zoning may specify a variety of outright and conditional uses of land. It may indicate the size and dimensions of lots that land may be subdivided into, or the form and scale of buildings. These guidelines are set in order to guide urban growth and development.

Ramapo, New York Town in New York, United States

Ramapo is a town in Rockland County, New York, United States. It was originally formed as New Hampstead, in 1791, and became Ramapo in 1828. It shares its name with the Ramapo River. As of the 2020 census, Ramapo had a total population of 148,919, making it the most populous town in New York outside of Long Island. If Ramapo were incorporated as a city, it would be the sixth-largest city in the state of New York.

In United States constitutional law, a regulatory taking occurs when governmental regulations limit the use of private property to such a degree that the landowner is effectively deprived of all economically reasonable use or value of their property. Under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution governments are required to pay just compensation for such takings. The amendment is incorporated to the states via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Inclusionary zoning (IZ), also known as inclusionary housing, refers to municipal and county planning ordinances that require a given share of new construction to be affordable by people with low to moderate incomes. The term inclusionary zoning indicates that these ordinances seek to counter exclusionary zoning practices, which aim to exclude low-cost housing from a municipality through the zoning code. There are variations among different inclusionary zoning programs. Firstly, they can be mandatory or voluntary. Though voluntary programs exist, the great majority has been built as a result of local mandatory programmes requiring developers to include the affordable units in their developments. There are also variations among the set-aside requirements, affordability levels coupled with the period of control. In order to encourage engagements in these zoning programs, developers are awarded with incentives for engaging in these programs, such as density bonus, expedited approval and fee waivers.

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), Pub.L. 106–274 (text)(PDF), codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., is a United States federal law that prohibits the imposition of burdens on the ability of prisoners to worship as they please and gives churches and other religious institutions a way to avoid zoning law restrictions on their property use. It also defines the term "religious exercise" to include "any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief." RLUIPA was enacted by the United States Congress in 2000 to correct the problems of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. The act was passed in both the House of Representatives and the Senate by unanimous consent in voice votes, meaning that no objection was raised to its passage, so no written vote was taken. The S. 2869 legislation was enacted into law by the 42nd President of the United States Bill Clinton on September 22, 2000.

Impact fee

An impact fee is a fee that is imposed by a local government within the United States on a new or proposed development project to pay for all or a portion of the costs of providing public services to the new development. Impact fees are considered to be a charge on new development to help fund and pay for the construction or needed expansion of offsite capital improvements. These fees are usually implemented to help reduce the economic burden on local jurisdictions that are trying to deal with population growth within the area.

A planned unit development (PUD) is a type of flexible, non-Euclidean zoning device that redefines the land uses allowed within a stated land area. PUDs consist of unitary site plans that promote the creation of open spaces, mixed-use housing and land uses, environmental preservation and sustainability, and development flexibility. Areas rezoned as PUDs include building developments, designed groupings of both varied and compatible land uses —such as housing, recreation, commercial centers, and industrial parks— within one contained development or subdivision. Developed areas vary in size and by zoned uses, such as industrial, commercial, and residential. Other types of similar zoning devices include floating zones, overlay zones, special district zoning, performance-based codes, and transferable development rights.

Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reviewed the concept of judicial standing and affirmed that if the plaintiffs lacked standing, they could not maintain a case against the defendants.

California Coastal Commission State agency with quasi-judicial regulatory oversight over coastal zone

The California Coastal Commission (CCC) is a state agency within the California Natural Resources Agency with quasi-judicial control of land and public access along the state's 1,100 miles (1,800 km) coastline. The commission's mission is defined in the California Coastal Act, including to "protect" and "enhance" California's coast.

Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), more commonly Dolan v. Tigard, is a United States Supreme Court case. It is a landmark case regarding the practice of zoning and property rights, and has served to establish limits on the ability of cities and other government agencies to use zoning and land-use regulations to compel property owners to make unrelated public improvements as a condition to getting zoning approval, citing the violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.

Spot zoning is the application of zoning to a specific parcel or parcels of land within a larger zoned area when the rezoning is usually at odds with a city's master plan and current zoning restrictions. Spot zoning may be ruled invalid as an "arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable treatment" of a limited parcel of land by a local zoning ordinance. While zoning regulates the land use in whole districts, spot zoning makes unjustified exceptions for a parcel or parcels within a district.

Zoning in the United States

Zoning in the United States includes various land use laws falling under the police power rights of state governments and local governments to exercise authority over privately owned real property. Zoning laws in major cities originated with the Los Angeles zoning ordinances of 1904 and the New York City Zoning resolution of 1916. Early zoning regulations were motivated by racism and classism. Zoning ordinances did not allow African-Americans moving into or using residences that were occupied by majority whites due to the fact that their presence would decrease the value of home. The constitutionality of zoning ordinances was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. in 1926

Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), is a U.S. Supreme Court case that limited access to federal court for plaintiffs alleging uncompensated takings of private property under the Fifth Amendment. In June 2019, this case was overruled in part by the Court's decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, Pennsylvania.

Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the test for determining whether a zoning ordinance or governmental regulation will be considered a taking is whether such action “substantially advances” a legitimate state interest.

Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning

The Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning (DPZ) manages planning and development in Howard County, Maryland, a Central Maryland jurisdiction equidistant between Baltimore, Maryland and Washington, D.C.

<i>Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardinia</i> Appeal against municipal zoning laws in New York

Gernatt Asphalt Products, Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 87 N.Y.2d 668, 664 N.E.2d 1226, 642 N.Y.S.2d 164 (1996), was an appeal against municipal zoning laws in New York and whether they were addressed by New York State's Mined Land Reclamation Law, decided in the New York Court of Appeals.

Town Planning Board Hong Kong planning body

The Town Planning Board is a statutory body of the Hong Kong Government tasked with developing urban plans with an aim to ensuring the "health, safety, convenience and general welfare of the community through the process of guiding and controlling the development and use of land, and to bring about a better organised, efficient and desirable place to live and work." It is founded upon section 2 of the Town Planning Ordinance.

An Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance is an American legislative method to tie public infrastructure to growth for a region.

The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) is a California state law designed to promote infill development by speeding housing approvals. The Act was passed in 1982 in recognition that "the lack of housing, including emergency shelter, is a critical statewide problem," and has also been referred to as "the anti-NIMBY law." It empowers the State of California to limit the ability of local government to restrict the development of new housing. The Act was strengthened by its amendment in 2017.

Arlington County Board v. Richards, 434 U.S. 5 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court decision on the application of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution to municipal parking restrictions. In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court held that a residential zoned parking system requiring permits for daytime parking in the Aurora Highlands neighborhood of Arlington County, Virginia, with those permits limited to residents, their guests and those who came to their homes for business purposes had a rational basis and was thus constitutional. Its decision overturned the Virginia Supreme Court.

References

  1. Devine, Jill (1992). "Golden v. Planning Bd. of Ramapo Revisited: Old Lessons for New Problems". Pace Law Review. 12 (107): 107–138.
  2. "Golden v. Planning Board". Quimbee. Retrieved 5 April 2022.
  3. "Golden v. The Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo". The Environmental Law Reporter. Retrieved 5 April 2022.
  4. Meck, Stuart; Retzlaff, Rebecca (May 2008). "The Emergence of Growth Management Planning in the United States: The Case of Golden v. Planning Board of Town of Ramapo and Its Aftermath". Journal of Planning History. 7 (2): 113–157. doi:10.1177/1538513207310210. S2CID   154691718 . Retrieved 5 April 2022.
  5. Nolon, John R. (1993). "The Erosion of Home Rule Through the Emergence of State-Interests in Land Use Control". Pace Environmental Law Review. Social Science Research Network. 10. SSRN   1346666 . Retrieved 5 April 2022.
  6. Korkosz, John P. (2000). "Financing public infrastructure: A case study on whether development impact fees & exactions or property taxes should be used to support the financing of new public infrastructure". UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. 506. doi:10.34917/1647686.