Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook Online
Chapter 8: Local Land Development Regulation (Endnotes)
This commentary appeared in different form as "Model Planning and Zoning Enabling Legislation: A Short History," by Stuart Meck, AICP, in Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing Smart Working Papers, Vol. 1, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 462/463 (Chicago: American Planning Association, March 1996), 1-17.
Advisory Committee on Zoning, U.S. Department of Commerce, A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SZEA), revised edition (Washington, D.C. U.S. GPO, 1926); and Advisory Committee on Planning and Zoning, U.S. Department of Commerce, A Standard City Planning Enabling Act (SCPEA) (Washington, D.C. U.S. GPO, 1928).
See Ruth Knack, Stuart Meck, and Israel Stollman, "The Real Story Behind the Standard Planning and Zoning Enabling Acts of the 1920s," Land Use Law& Zoning Digest 48, No. 2 (February 1996): 3-9, at 3 (discussing Hoover's interest in planning and land-use controls).
Harland Bartholomew, "What Is Comprehensive Zoning," in National Conference on City Planning, New York, Planning Problems of Town, City and Region: Papers and Discussions (Philadelphia, Pa.: Wm. F. Fell, 1928), 47-71 (discussing underlying studies to be made in advance of the preparation of a zoning ordinance).
Edward M. Bassett, Frank B. Williams, Alfred Bettman, and Robert Whitten, Model Laws for Planning Cities, Counties, and States, including Zoning, Subdivision Regulation, and Protection of Official Map (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935).
Of course, the fact that the board was abusing its authority and the legislative board knew thisbut failed to rein in the board could indicate something far more serious about the ethical environment of the local government. Forcing the legislative body to modify decision-making standards to eliminate abuses requires elected officials to slap the wrist of board of appeals members that they were responsible for appointing. It is therefore a better idea to have strict decision-making standards and limiting language on the board's authority in the enabling legislation itself than to rely on local government to rectify the problem.
H. Walker, Jr., Problems and Suggestions in the Drafting of Rural Zoning Enabling Legislation, Resettlement Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Land Use Planning Pub. No. 10 (Washington, D.C: U.S.D.A., 1936)
Id., at 336, note 29, citing Proposed New Mexico Act Defining the Content and Preparation of the General Plan. For a discussion of this language and its implications, see William A. Doebele, Jr., "Horse Sense About Zoning and the Master Plan," Zoning Digest 13 (1961): 209, 212-214.
American Society of Planning Officials (ASPO), New Directions in Connecticut Planning Legislation: A Study of Connecticut Planning, Zoning and Related Statutes (Chicago: ASPO, February 1966). The summary is drawn from Chapter 4. The ASPO Connecticut Report, the American Law Institute's Model Land Development Code (see discussion below), the report of the National Commission on Urban Problems (see discussion below), and several other studies are analyzed at length in David Heeter, Toward a More Effective Land-Use Guidance System: A Summary and Analysis of Five Major Reports, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 250 (Chicago: ASPO, 1969).
 For a critical discussion of the decision not to mandate planning in the ALI Code, see George Raymont, "New? Yes . . .More Effective? No," in American Society of Planning Officials, 1971 Land Use Controls Annual (1971), 47; and Allison Dunham and Fred Bosselman, "The Reporters' Reply," 1971 Land Use Controls Annual (1971), 113, 114-115.
 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), State Legislative Program, No. 5: Environment, Land Use and Growth Policy (Washington, D.C. U.S. GPO, November 1975), 13-65, passim.
 Council of State Governments, Suggested State Legislation (Lexington, Ky.: The Council) (volumes for various years). By year, the legislation included: "County Powers in Relation to Local Planning and Zoning Actions Act," in Vol. 35 (1976), 70-74; "County Planning, Zoning, and Subdivision Control in Unincorporated Areas Act," in Vol. 35 (1976), 75-85; "Small Airport Zoning Regulation and Restrictions Act," in Vol. 44 (1985), 23-30; "State Flood Hazard Area Regulations Act," in Vol. 47 (1988), 1-21; "Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act," in Vol. 49 (1990), 9-28; "Stormwater Management and Sediment Reduction Act," in Vol. 52 (1992); 87-97; and "Development Impact Fee Act," in Vol. 52 (1993), 115-123.
J. Bachrach et al., "A Standard Impact Fee Enabling Statute," 135-141; and Julian C. Juergensmeyer and James C. Nicholas, 156-162, in Development Impact Fees: Policy Rationale, Practice, Theory and Issues, Arthur C. Nelson, ed. (Chicago: Planners Press, 1988).
 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Proposed Model Land Development Standards and Accompanying Model State Enabling Legislation, 1993 Edition, prepared by NAHB Research Center (Washington, D.C.: June 1993).
 American Bar Association (ABA) Advisory Commission on Housing and Urban Growth, Richard Fishman, ed., Housing for All Under Law: New Directions for Housing, Land Use and Planning Law (Cambridge, Mass.: Ballinger, 1978). See also the discussion of this report in the commentary to Section 2-102, State Interests for Which Public Entities Shall Have Regard.
 National Commission on Urban Problems, Building the American City: Report of the National Commission on Urban Problems to Congress and to the President of the United States (Washington, D.C. U.S. GPO, 1968). The recommendations summarized here appear in the report at 242-252, passim. The report's recommendations are also discussed in the commentary to Section 2-102, State Interests for Which Public Entities Shall Have Regard, and in the introduction to Chapter 6, Regional Planning.
 The President's Commission on Housing, Report of the President's Commission on Housing (Washington, D.C., 1982). The recommendations summarized below appear at 202-9, 232-233, passim. See also the discussion of this report at Section 2-102, State Interests for Which Public Entities Shall Have Regard.
 Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, "Not in My Back Yard": Removing Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1991). The summary of recommendations below appears in the report at 14-16, passim.
 Many of the report's recommendations in this area have been incorporated into the Legislative Guidebook. The report proposed that each local government have a housing element of a local comprehensive plan subject to state approval. It also recommended state authority to override barriers to affordable housing as well as the authority to establish state housing targets and fair-share planning mechanisms. See the two alternative statutes in Section 4-208, State Planning for Affordable Housing, and Section 7-207, Housing Element.
 See e.g., 65 Ill. Comp. Laws 5/11-13-1 (1997) (requiring zoning map to be published not later than March 31 of each year) ; R.I. Gen. Laws 45-24-45(A) (1996) (printed copies of zoning ordinance and maps shall be available to the general public and shall be revised to include all amendments).
 Ore. Admin. Rules 660-08-15 (March 1991) (this rule applies to "needed housing"); 660-16-010(3) (November 1993 (this rule applies to local planning and land-use regulations affecting open spaces, scenic and historic areas, and natural resources)). For a discussion of Ore. Admin. Rules 660-08-15, see Terry Morgan, "Exclusionary Zoning Remedies Under Oregon's Land Use Planning Program," Environmental Law 14, No. 4 (Summer 1984): 779-830, at 812-815; and Robert L. Liberty, "Oregon's Comprehensive Growth Management Program: An Implementation Review and Lessons from Other States," Environmental Law Reporter News& Analysis XXII, No. 6 (June 1992): 10367, 10378 to 10379.
 This commentary and the Section 8-104 that follows are based in part on an analysis by Robert Lincoln, "Implementing the Consistency Doctrine," in Modernizing State Planning Statutes: The Growing Smart Working Papers, Vol. 1, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 462/463 (Chicago: American Planning Association, March 1996), 89-104.
[67 ]Joseph F. DiMento, The Consistency Doctrine and the Limits of Planning (Cambridge, Mass.: Oelgeschlager, Gunn, and Hain, 1980); Charles Haar, "'In Accordance with a Comprehensive Plan,'" Harvard. L. Rev. 68 (1955): 1154; Charles Haar, "The Master Plan: An Impermanent Constitution," Law and Contemporary Problems 20 (1955): 353; Daniel Mandelker, "The Role of the Local Comprehensive Plan in Land Use Regulation," Mich. L. Rev. 74 (1976): 899; Edith M. Netter and John Vranicar, Linking Plans and Regulations: Local Responses to Consistency Laws in California and Florida, Planning Advisory Report No. 363 (Chicago: American Planning Association, 1981); Charles L. Siemon, "The Paradox of 'In Accordance with a Comprehensive Plan' and Post Hoc Rationalization: The Need for Efficient and Effective Judicial Review of Land Use Regulations," Stetson Law Review 16 (1987): 603; Edward J. Sullivan and Lawrence Kressel, "Twenty Years After—Renewed Significance of the Comprehensive Plan Requirement," Urban Law Ann. 9 (1975): 33; A. Dan Tarlock, "Consistency with Adopted Land Use Plans as a Standard of Judicial Review: The Case Against," Urban Law. Ann. 9 (1975): 69. For a review of the case law on the consistency issue, see Norman Williams, Jr. American Land Planning Law, Vo1. 1 (Deerfield, Ill.: Clark Boardman Callaghan, 1988), Ch. 23; Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law, 4th ed. (Charlottesville: Lexis Law Publishing Co, 1997), 3.13 to 3.15; and Eric D. Kelly, gen. ed., Zoning and Law Use Controls, Vol. 5 (New York: Matthew Bender, October 1998), 32A.05. For a good appraisal of a Florida decision on consistency, see Thomas Pelham, "Quasi-Judicial Rezonings: A Commentary on the Snyder Decision and the Consistency Doctrine," Land Use and Environmental Law 9, No. 2 (1994): 243-306 (analyzing Board of County Commissioners of Brevard County v. Snyder, 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)).
 See Raabe v. City of Walker, 383 Mich. 165, 174 N.W.2d 789 (1970)(absence of a formally-adopted municipal plan does not invalidate zoning but does "weaken substantially the well-known presumption" that normally applies to a zoning ordinance); Forestview Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Cook County, 18 Ill.App.3d 230, 309 N.E.2d 763 (1st Dist. 1974)(failure of county to comprehensively plan for land use within its jurisdiction and to link land development regulations to plans and data "weaken the presumption of validity which otherwise would attach to a zoning ordinance."); Board of County Commissioners v. City of Las Vegas, 95 N.M. 387, 622 P.2d 695 (1980)(where the state statute requires zoning regulations to be "in accordance with" a comprehensive plan, the absence of such a plan renders the zoning ordinance invalid).
 See, e.g., Clermont Envtl. Reclamation Co. v. Wiederhold, 2 Ohio St.3d 44, 442 N.E. 2d 1278 (1982) (holding that townships may not prohibit the construction of a hazardous waste facility once the state hazardous waste facility review board has issued a license to operate the facility).
 Welsh v. City of Orono, 355 N.W.2d 117 (Minn. 1994). See also Arthur Whitcomb, Inc. v. Town of Carroll, 141 N.H. 402, 686 A.2d 743 (1996) (comprehensive state legislation on commercial excavation preempts local zoning); River Springs Ltd. Liability Co. v. Board of County Commissioners, 899 P.2d 1329 (Wyo. 1995) (state agency has pervasive control over mining).
 On this topic see generally Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law, 4th ed. (Charlottesville, Va.: Lexis Law Publishing 1997), 4.26 to 4.41; Edward Ziegler, Rathkopf's Law of Zoning and Planning (Eagan, Minn: West Group, 1999), Ch. 53 (Governmental Uses and Zoning). The American Law Institute's Model Land Development Code provided that, unless exempted by statute, governmental development would be subject to regulation by local governments in the exerciser of the powers conferred upon them by the Code. American Law Institute (ALI), A Model Land Development Code: Complete Text and Commentary (Philadelphia: ALI, 1976), 12-201, Compliance with Local Regulations).
 Pursuant to the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, land owned or leased by the United States or an agency thereof for purposes authorized by Congress is immune from and supersedes state and local laws. U.S. Const., Art. IV. See e.g., Tim v. City of Long Branch, 135 N.J.L. 549, 53 A.2d 164 (1947); United States v. Chester, 144 F.2d 415 (3d Cir. 1944).
 Brownfield v. State, 63 Ohio St. 2d 282, 407 N.E.2d 1365 (1980), overruled on other grounds by Racing Guild of Ohio, Local 304 v. State Racing Commission, 28 Ohio St. 3d 317, 503 N.E.2d 1025 (1986)
 Ky. Rev. Stats. 100.203 (1998); R. I. Gen. Laws 45-24-32 (1996). See also 30-A Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. 4352 (1997) (describing contents of zoning ordinance); and Me. Admin. Rules Ch. 210 (1998) (Zoning Ordinance Review Criteria Rule, describing required elements of a zoning ordinance).
 23 U.S.C. 131 (2000). For a discussion of the federal Highway Beautification Act, see Albert, "Your Ad Goes Here: How the Highway Beautification Act of 1967 Thwarts Highway Beautification," 48 U.Kan.L.Rev. (2000)
 For a review of state requirements regarding manufactured housing, see S. Mark White, "State and Federal Planning Legislation and Manufactured Housing: New Opportunities for Affordable, Single-Family Shelter," Urban Lawyer 28, No. 2 (Spring 1996): 263-292; Molly A. Sellman, "Equal Treatment of Housing: A Proposed Model State Code for Manufactured Housing," in 1989 Zoning and Planning Law Handbook, Mark S. Dennison, ed. (New York: Clark Boardman Co., Ltd. 1989), Ch. 18.
 For a history of the development of subdivision regulations in the U.S., see David Listokin and Carol Walker, The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1989), Pt. II, Ch. 1. See also Robert H. Freilich and Michael M. Schultz, Model Subdivision Regulations, 2d ed. (Chicago: APA Planners Press, 1995), 1-7.
 For an excellent overview of state regulation of subdivisions, including the different definitions of "subdivision" among the states, see Patricia Salkin, "Subdivision Controls," Ch. 45, in Zoning and Land Use Controls, Vol. 9, Eric D. Kelly, Gen. Ed. (New York: Matthew Bender, 1996), esp. 45.01 to 45.02. See also James A. Kushner, Subdivision Law and Growth Management (Eagan, Minn.: West Group, 1998), Chs. 5, 7, 8, and 9; Edward H. Ziegler, Rathkopf's The Law of Zoning and Planning, Vol 5, Ch. 64 to 66 (Eagan, Minn. West Group, 1998); and Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law, 4th ed. (Charlottesville, Va.: Lexis Law Publishing, 1997), 9.01 et seq.
 This discussion originally appeared in different form as "Subdivision Control: A Primer for Planning Commissioners," by Stuart Meck, AICP, in The Commissioner (Chicago: American Planning Association, Fall 1996/Winter 1997): 4-6.
 R.I. Gen. Laws, Tit. 45, Ch. 23 (1997). Note: Some types of subdivisions in Rhode Island can be approved by an administrative officer or referred by the officer to the planning board. 42-23-37 (General provisions—administrative subdivision); N.J. Stat. Ann. 40: 55D-37 (1998).
 Edward M. Bassett, Frank B. Williams, Alfred Bettman, and Robert Whitten, Model Laws for Planning Cities, Counties, and States, including Zoning, Subdivision Regulation, and Protection of Official Map (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1935), 39-47, esp. 41-43.
 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR), ACIR State Legislative Program, No. 5, Environment, Land Use and Growth Policy (Washington, D.C. U.S. GPO, November 1975), 91-104, esp. 100-101.
 Ky. Rev. Stats. 100.273 to 100.292; N.J. Rev. Stat. Ch. 55D, Art. 6; R.I. Gen. Laws, Tit. 45, Ch. 23. The Guidebook particularly utilizes language from the excellent Rhode Island subdivision statute.
 For example, California describes in great detail the format for "final maps," which are final plats, including the size of sheet on which the map is to be drawn, the color of ink, and the particular media ("polyester base film" or "tracing cloth"). Cal. Gov't Code 66434 (1998
 In the SCPEA, for example, the preliminary plan was termed a "tentative plan," and the "tentative approval" by the planning commission was "revocable" and was not to be entered on the plat as the official action of the planning commission. SCPEA, 14. The SCPEA contemplated that the tentative approval "would be followed by the formal and final approval." SCPEA, n. 14.
 For reviews of the case law surrounding site plan review, see Norman Williams, Jr., American Land Planning Law, Vol. 5 (Deerfield, Ill.: Clark Boardman Callaghan, 1988, and 1998 Supp.), 152.01; Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law, 4th ed. (Charlottesville, Va.: Lexis Law Publishing Co, 1997), 6.68; Patrick J. Rohan, Eric D. Kelly, gen. ed., Zoning and Land Use Controls, Vol. 6 (New York: Matthew Bender, 1996), ch. 33C; and Edith M. Netter, in Edward Ziegler, ed., Rathkopf's Law of Zoning and Planning, Vol. 5. (Eagan, Minn.: West Group, 1993 Release), ch. 62. Most of the case law turns on procedural and scope of authority issues connected with specific state statutes.
 According to Professor Daniel R. Mandelker," [i]f a site plan complies with site plan review requirements and if the proposed use is authorized by the zoning ordinance, the reviewing agency may not disapprove the site plan because it finds the proposed use objectionable." Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law, 4th ed., 6.68, at 281, citing Kozinski v. Lawler, 418 A.2d 66 (1966).
 Williams, American Land Planning Law, Vol. 5, 152.01, at 282. Williams was apparently referring to New Jersey case law. See Kozenik v. Twp. of Montgomery, 24 N.J. 154, 131 A.2d. 1 (1957) (N.J. statute then in effect granting governing body the authority to refer "any action" to planning commission).
 McCrann v. Town Plan. and Zoning Comm'n, 161 Conn. 6, 282 A.2d 900 (19971); Charter Twp. Of Harrison, v. Calisi, 121 Mich. App. 777, 329 N.W.2d 488 (1982); Sun Oil Co. v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 403 Pa. 409, 169 A.2d 294 (1961)
 Colwell v. Howard County, 31 Md. App. 8, 354 A.2d 210 (1976); Y.D. Dugout, Inc. v Bd. of Appeals, 357 Mass. 25, 255 N.E.2d (1970); Southwick, Inc. v. City of Lacey, 58 Wash. App. 886, 795 P.2d 712 (1990).
 Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-3(g) (site plan review); 8-3 (h) (change of zoning regulations or districts), 8-3(i) to (j) (completion of approved work), and 8-7d (hearings and decisions) (1998). 185 Mich. Comp. Stats. 125.286e (townships); 125.584d (cities and villages). The definition of site plan appears in paragraph (1) of both statutes.
 Mich. Comp. Stats. 125.286e (5); 125.584d (5). The language addressing state and federal statutes appears to require that local governments, which customarily do not enforce such laws, have some type of confirmation or signoff from those governments that they do in fact comply with applicable statutes.
 If enabling legislation were to grant the authority to consider off-site conditions, such as the character of the surrounding area, the legislation would inadvertently convert site plan review into a discretionary technique such as conditional use permit review.
 Coscan Washington, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Comm'n, 87 Md. App. 602, 590 A.2d 1080 (1991); Southland Corp. v. Mayor and City Council, 75 Md. App. 375, 541 A.2d 653 (1988); Holmes v. Planning Bd. of New Castle, 78 A.D. 2d 1, 433 N.Y.S.2d 587 (2d Dept. Sup. Ct. 1980).
 William H. Whyte, Cluster Development (New York: American Conservation Association, 1964), ch. 1. For a case discussing and upholding cluster zoning, see Chrinko v. South Brunswick Twp. Planning Bd, 77 N.J. Super. 594, 187 A.2d 221 (1963).
 For a detailed history on the emergence of PUDs, see Patrick J. Rohan, Eric D. Kelly, Gen. Editor Zoning and Land Use Controls (New York: Matthew Bender, 1991), 32.01. See generally Daniel R. Mandelker, Controlling Planned Residential Developments (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1966); and National Commission on Urban Problems, Building the American City, Report of the National Commission on Urban Problems (Washington, D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1968), 245-246; Robert Burchell, ed., Frontiers of Planned Unit Development (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1973); David Mosena and Frank Bangs, Planned Unit Development Ordinances, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 271 (Chicago: American Society of Planning Officials, 1973).
 Richard F. Babcock, Jan Z. Krasnowiecki, and David N. McBride, "The Model State Statute," Univ. of Pa. L. Rev. 114. no 1 (1965): 140-170; Urban Land Institute (ULI) Technical Bulletin 52, Legal Aspects of Planned Unit Residential Development (Washington, D.C.: ULI, 1965).
 Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. 8-13(b), et seq., 8-13(e)(5), 8-13(a)(e)(3) ; Kan. Stat. Ann. 12-728a(2), (3),12-733; Colo. Rev. Stat. 24-67-107, 24-67-108; Nev. Rev. Stat. 280A.010 et seq.; Mont. Code. Ann. 11-3842 et seq.; Ohio Rev. Code. Ann. 303.022, 519.021; Idaho Code Ann. 67-6155; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch.40A, 1; Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. 100.203(1)(e); Ark. Stat. Ann. 19-2829(b); N.Y. Town Law 281, N.Y. Village Law 7-738, N.Y. Gen. City Law 37.
 S. Mark White and Dawn Jordan, "Neotraditional Development: A Legal Analysis," Land Use Law& Zoning Digest 49, no. 8 (August 1997): 3-11, at 3. See generally Peter Katz, The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community (New York: McGraw Hill, 1994); Andres Duany and Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, Towns and Town Making Principles (New York: Rizzoli, 1992); Peter Calthorpe, The Next American Metropolis (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1993); Raymond Unwin, Town Planning in Practice (New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 1994) (reprint of 1909 edition). For an example of a statute that is intended to encourage "village" style development, with design objectives for a zoning use district that are similar to those for traditional neighborhood development above, see Conn. Gen. Stat. 8-2j (1998).
 A useful book containing and discussing development standards is David Listokin and Carole Walker, The Subdivision and Site Plan Handbook (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1989).
 See generally Steven Seidel, Housing Costs and Government Regulations: Confronting the Regulatory Maze (New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research, 1978), Ch. 7 (The Effect of Subdivision Regulation on Housing Costs).
 U.S. Dep't of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research (HUD), Proposed Model Land Development Standards and Accompanying Model State Enabling Legislation, 1993 ed. (Washington D.C.: U.S. GPO, 1993), 1.
 U.S. Advisory Commission on Regulatory Barriers to Affordable Housing, "Not in My Back Yard" Removing Barriers to Affordable Housing (Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1991), 15.
 Telephone interview on March 24, 1999 with Ms. Leslie P. McGowan, member, Site Improvement Advisory Board and Treasurer, New Jersey Chapter of the American Planning Association; N.J. Stat. Ann. 40:55D-40.4(d).
 New Jersey State League of Municipalities v. Dep't of Community Affairs, 708 A.2d 708 (N.J. App.Div. 1998) (State enactment of site improvement standards modifies and does not limit the zoning power of local governments, as the local governments participate in the preparation and enforcement of the standards).
 See generally Charles Siemon and Wendy Larsen, Vested Rights: Balancing Public and Private Development Expectations (Washington, D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1982); Orlando Delogu, "Land Use and Vested Rights: Mixed Law and Policy Issues," Land Use Law& Zoning Digest, Vol. 41, No. 1 (1989): 3-5; David Heeter, "Zoning Estoppel: Application of the Principles of Equitable Estoppel and Vested Rights to Zoning Disputes," Urban Law Ann. (1971): 63; John J. Delaney, AICP, "The Developers'/Landowners' Perspective of Planning Law Reform," in Modernizing Statute Planning Statutes: The Growing Smart Working Papers, Vol. 1, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 462/463 (Chicago: American Planning Association, March 1996), 31-38.
 Under present constitutional analysis, a regulation of property does not constitute a taking unless it denies all reasonable use of the property; that is, the property loses all market value. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
 Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores, Inc., 26 Wis.2d 683, 133 N.W.2d 267 (1965) (Plaintiffs induced to raise $18,000, sell bakery, buy and operate a small grocery store in a neighboring town and then sell it at the height of the sales season, purchase a building site for the proposed franchise, and rent a residence in the town in which the franchise was to be located. Though franchisor never offered the applicant a contract, franchisor liable due to representations that the application was likely to be granted and that the preparations were necessary for a successful franchise).
 City of Hutchins v. Prasifka, 450 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. 1970) (Owner bought and improved land based upon rezoning from residential to industrial. City later changed zoning back to residential and sued to block owner's industrial development. City estopped by earlier rezoning). A.A. Profiles, Inc. v. City of Ft. Lauderdale, 850 F.2d 1483 (11th Cir. 1988) (developer's due process right violated when new zoning ordinance denied developer's previously-granted right to develop in a particular manner).
 Golden Gate Corp. v. Town of Narragansett, 359 A.2d 321 (R.I. 1976) (all property is subject to the police power, so that a vested right would unduly restrict government's ability to regulate use of those parcels with vested rights attached).
 Cos Corporation v. City of Evanston, 27 Ill.2d 570, 190 N.E.2d 364 (1963) (Statements by city officials at four conferences between landowners and officials that project was acceptable, compliant with all legal requirements, and would be approved were alone sufficient to create vested right, when combined with substantial expenses incurred in anticipation of development). 247 Juanita Bay Valley Community Assoc. v. City of Kirkland, 9 Wash.App. 59, 510 P.2d 1140 (1973) (Approval of grading permit sufficient basis for estoppel).
 Tellimar Homes, Inc. v. Miller, 14 A.D.2d 586, 218 N.Y.S.2d 175 (1961) (Maps for two of four sections of subdivision approved; developer installed roads, water, sewer, and drainage, built model homes, and advertised for those sections. Vested development right existed.)
 Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission, 553 P.2d 546 (Cal. 1976) (Owner spent more than $3 million in reliance on final approval of map and initial approval of development permit. State then imposed additional permit requirement which owner challenged. No estoppel because owner did not have final building permit.)
 Rockville Fuel& Feed Co. v Gaithersburg, 266 Md. 117, 291 A.2d 672, (1972); Willdel Realty, Inc. v New Castle County, 270 A2d 174 (Del.Ch. 1970), aff'd 281 A.2d 612 (Del.Sup.); Glickman v Parish of Jefferson, 224 So.2d 141 (La.App. 1969); State ex rel. Humble Oil& Refining Co. v Wahner, 25 Wis.2d 1, 130 N.W.2d 304 (1964); Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. v Detroit, 368 Mich. 276, 118 N.W.2d 258 (1962).
 Henry& Murphy, Inc. v Allenstown, 424 A.2d 1132 (N.H. 1980); American Nat. Bank& Trust v. City of Chicago, 311 N.E.2d 325 (Ill.App. 1974); Pure Oil Div. v. City of Columbia, 254 S.C. 28, 173 S.E.2d 140 (1970); Hobbs v Markey, 398 S.W.2d 54 (Ky. 1965); State ex rel. Great Lakes Pipe Line Co. v Hendrickson, 393 S.W.2d 481 (Mo. 1965).
 Cunningham v City of Twin Falls, 125 Idaho 776, 874 P.2d 587 (App. 1994); WMM Props. v. Cobb County, 339 S.E.2d 252 (Ga. 1986); Folsom Enters. v. City of Scottsdale, 620 F.Supp. 1372 (D. Ariz. 1985); Smith v. Winhall Planning Comm'n, 436 A.2d 760 (Vt. 1981); Hass v Kirkland, 78 Wash.2d 929, 481 P.2d 9 (1971); Gibson v Oberlin, 171 Ohio St. 1, 167 N.E.2d 651 (1960).
 Douglas T. Kendall, Timothy J. Dowling, and Andrew w. Schwartz, "Choice of Forum and Finality Ripeness: The Unappreciated Hot Topics in Regulatory Takings Cases," Urban Lawyer 33, No. 2 (Spring 2001): 405-431, 429.
 Whitehead Oil Co. v. City of Lincoln, 515 N.E.2d 390 (Neb. 1994); Bankoff v. Bd. of Adjustment, 875 P.2d 1138 (Okla. 1994); Lake Bluff Housing Partners v. City of South Milwaukee, 525 N.W.2d 59 (Wis. App. 1994); Marmah, Inc. v. Town of Greenwich, 405 A.2d 63 (Conn. 1978); Rockville Fuel& Feed v. City of Gaithersburg, 291 A.2d 672 (Md. 1972); Commercial Props. Inc. v. Peternel, 211 A.2d 514 (Pa. 1965); Sunset View Cem. Ass'n v. Kraintz, 16 Cal. Rptr. 317 (Cal. App. 1961); Gibson v. City of Oberlin, 171 Ohio St. 1, 167 N.E.2d. 651 (1960).
 Some general resources on nonconforming uses include: Robert M. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Vol 1, (4th ed. Deerfield, IL: Clark Boardman Callaghan, 1996), ch. 6; Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law, (4th ed., Charlottesville, VA: Lexis Law Publishing Co. 1997,)194-206; Patrick J. Rohan& Eric Damian Kelly, Zoning and Land Use Controls, (New York City: Matthew Bender& Co. 1998), 1-27 to 1-30, 41-1 et seq.; Joseph M. Schilling& James B. Hare, Code Enforcement: A Comprehensive Approach (Point Arena, Ca: Solano Press, 1994), 168-171; Mark S. Dennison, "Changing or Expanding Nonconforming Uses," Zoning News (March 1997): 1-4; Eric J. Strauss& Mary M. Geise, "Elimination of Nonconformities: The Case of Voluntary Discontinuance," Land Use L.& Zoning Dig. 45, No. 6 (June 1993): 3-10; and Rodney Cobb, "Amortizing Nonconforming Uses," Land Use L.& Zoning Dig. 37, No. 1 (January 1985): 3-7.
 Some definitions of nonconforming use include "a use of land or a building that does not conform with the use restrictions of the zoning ordinance." Mandelker at 195; and "the lawful use of a building or structure or the lawful use of any land, as existing and lawful at the time of the adoption of a zoning resolution, or, in the case of an amendment of a resolution, at the time of such amendment." Colo. Rev. Stat. 30-28-120. The latter definition, with slight variations, is common in statutes.
 Ohio Rev. Code 303. 19 (counties), 519.19 (townships), 713.15 (municipalities) (1998). See generally Stuart Meck and Kenneth Pearlman, Ohio Planning and Zoning Law (Eagan, Minn: West Group, 1999), ch. 7 (Nonconforming uses).
 The current status of case law on nonconforming uses can be determined in various annotations in the American Law Reports (ALR), including: "Validity of Provisions for Amortization of Nonconforming Uses," 8 ALR5th 391; "Alteration, Extension, Reconstruction, or Repair of Nonconforming Structure or Structure Devoted to Nonconforming Use as Violation of Zoning Ordinance," 63 ALR4th 275; "Change in Volume, Intensity, or Means of Performing Nonconforming Use as Violation of Zoning Ordinance," 61 ALR4th 806; "Addition of Another Activity to Existing Nonconforming Use as Violation of Zoning Ordinance," 61 ALR4th 724; "Change in Area or Location of Nonconforming Use as Violation of Zoning Ordinance," 56 ALR4th 769; and "Construction of New Building or Structure on Premises Devoted to Nonconforming Use as Violation of Zoning Ordinance," 10 ALR4th 1122.
 Baggs v. Zoning Bd. of Rev., 79 R.I. 211, 86 A.2d 658 (1952); State ex rel. City Ice& Fuel Co. v. Stegner, 120 Ohio St. 418, 166 N.E. 226 (1929); Vokes v. Avery W. Lowell, Inc., 18 Mass. App. 471, 468 N.E.2d 271 (1984), rev. den'd 393 Mass. 1103, 470 N.E.2d 798; Austin v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 91 Pa. Cmwlth. 356, 496 A.2d 1367 (1985).
 Powers v. Bldg. Inspector of Barnstable, 363 Mass. 648, 296 N.E.2d 491 (1973); Connecticut Sand& Stone Corp. v. Zoning Bd. of App., 150 Conn. 439, 190 A.2d 594 (1963); Hawkins v. Talbot, 248 Minn. 549, 80 N.W.2d 863 (1957).
 Aurora v. Kranz, 103 App.Div. 1022, 478 N.Y.S.2d 1012 (1984); Town Council of Los Gatos v. State Bd. of Equalization, 141 Cal.App.2d 344, 296 P.2d 909 (1956); Schaible v. Bd. of Adjustment, 15 N.J. Misc. 707, 194 A. 388 (1937).
 Baxter v. City of Preston, 768 P.2d 1340 (Idaho 1989); Stuckman v. Kosciusko Cty. Bd. of Zoning App.; 506 N.E.2d 1079 (Ind. 1987); Knowlton v. Browning-Ferris Industries, 220 Va. 571, 260 S.E.2d 232 (1979).
 Curtis v. Main, 482 A.2d 1253 (Me. 1984); Longwell v. Hodge, 297 S.E.2d 820 (W.Va. 1982); Sun Oil Co. v. Bd. of Zoning App., 393 N.Y.S.2d 760 (1977); Jones v. Cusimano, 524 So.2d 172 (La. Ct. App. 1988); City of Chicago v. Cohen, 49 Ill.App.3d 349, 364 N.E.2d 335 (1977).
 City of Minot v. Fisher, 212 N.W.2d 837 (N.D. 1973); Marchese v. Norristown Borough Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 2 Pa.Cmwlth 84, 277 A.2d 176 (1971); Trebat v. City of Park Ridge, 110 Ill.App.2d 404, 249 N.E.2d 681 (1969).
 Village of Oak Park v. Gordon, 32 Ill.2d 295, 205 N.E.2d 464(1965); Naegele Outdoor Ad. Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn.492, 162 N.W.2d 206 (1968); Wolf v. City of Omaha, 177 Neb. 545, 129 N.W.2d 501 (1964); Lachapelle v. Town of Goffstown, 107 N.H. 485, 225 A.2d 624 (1967); Harbison v. City of Buffalo, 4 N.Y.2d 353, 152 N.E.2d 42 (1958); City of University Park v. Benners, 485 S.W.2d 773 (Tex. 1972).
 Lamar Adv. of So. Ga. v. City of Albany, 260 Ga. 46, 389 S.E.2d 216 (1990); Pennsylvania N.W. Distrib. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 526 Pa. 186, 584 A.2d 1372 (1990); Hoffman v. Kinealy, 389 S.W.2d 745 (Mo. 1965).
 City of Akron v. Chapman, 160 Ohio St. 382, 116 N.E.2d 697 (1953); Northern Ohio Sign Contractors Ass'n. v. Lakewood, 32 Ohio St. 3d 316, 513 N.E.2d 324 (1987); Ailes v. Decatur Cty. Area Planning Comm'n, 448 N.E.2d 1057 (Ind. 1983) cert den'd 465 U.S. 1100 (1984); Loundsbury v. City of Keene, 122 N.H. 1006, 453 A.2d 1278 (1982).
 State v. Bates, 305 N.W.2d 426 (Iowa 1981); Scottsdale v. Scottsdale Assoc. Merchants, Inc., 120 Ariz. 4, 583 P.2d 891 (1978); Paducah v. Johnson, 522 S.W.2d 447 (Ky. 1975); DeMull v. Lowell, 368 Mich. 242, 118 N.W.2d 232 (1962).
 Service Oil Co. v. Rhodus, 179 Colo. 335, 500 P.2d 807 (1972); Naegele Outdoor Adv. Co. v. Village of Minnetonka, 281 Minn. 492, 162 N.W.2d 206 (1968); State ex rel. Dema Realty Co. v. McDonald, 168 La. 172, 121 So. 613 (1929), cert den'd 280 U.S. 556.
 Flick Theater v. Las Vegas, 104 Nev. 87, 752 P.2d 235 (1988); Oak Park v. Gordon, 32 Ill.2d 295, 205 N.E.2d 464 (1965); Livingston Rock& Gravel v. Los Angeles Cty., 43 Cal.2d 121, 272 P.2d 4 (1954).