Land Use Law & Zoning Digest 2002: Vol 54 Index

35 Pages·2002·12.7 MB·English

. Judicial Decisions
Anchorage, Municipality of, v.S uzuki (Alaska), 349
Author Index West Reporter Citations
Anderson v. Charter Townshipo f Ypsilanti (U.S
to Commentary \pp., 6th Cir.), 142
54 ZD 126 Anderson v. Larsen (Idaho)
Tony ikings and 54 ZD 129 Anderson v. City Dev. Bd. (lowa), 89
rulation from Comparative 54 ZD 131 Angiolillo v. Town of Greenburgh (N.Y \pp.), 269
rspective, DOOK review No. 7 at8 54 ZD 134 Animas Valley Sand and Gravel, In«
an, Gus Limited and 54 ZD 135 County Comm ers of the County of La Plata
2nd 494
moteda No. 6 54 ZD 175 Colo.), 126
|I The Shame of Planne 54 ZD 179 759 N.E.2d 595 Annapolis Market Place, LLC v. Parker (Md
54 ZD 233 793 A.2d 222; 793 A.2d 215 Anthony v. City of Shelby (N.C. App.), 59
BusHionwe sst o ReAgvuoliadt iotnh,e” TopN o1 5544 ZZDD 225917 7731S5..WW..33dd 21384 Ayp (oCsopnon.r)o s 3v1. 9 Urban Redevelopment Comm'n
54 ZD 378 770 N.E.2d 1243 Approvalo f Requestf or Amendmentto Frawley
Bergthold, Scott D., “How to Avoid the Top Ten Planned Unit Dev’ment, | (S.D.), 296
54 ZD 442 286 F.3d 687
Adult Business Regulation—Part \rizona Cattle Growers’ Ass‘n v. U.S. Fish and
54 ZD 497 799A.27d5 1
Wildlife (U.S. App., 9th Cit
No. 1 at8 5544 ZZDD 555510 777756 NN..EE.. 22dd 614139 4 \T&T Communications of the Pacific North
Talbert, and Nadia | 54 ZD 588 17 F.3d 978 west, Inc. v. City of Eugene (Ore. App.), 194
Costa, “Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Sur Ault v. Holden (Utah), 401
ves Constitutional Challenigne P Austin, City of, v. Travis County Landfill Co
Era (Tex.), 297
Avalonbay Communities, Inc. \ ind Zon
Case Number Index
nev John | g Comm'n (Conn.), 537
rain Robbery, Or Simply a Bridge Too Far for ZD No Avon, Town of, v. Oliver (Wis
andowners?” No. 6at 15 ZD No
Timothy |] Happy Earth Day, Lake ZD No B
No. 6at8 Bailey v. ZoningBd . of Adjustment (Pa
ZD No
The Once and FutureP . ZD No Baldwin, Town of, v. Carter (Me.), 464
ZD No Banks v. Dallas Housing Auth. (U.S. App., 5t
ZD No 1 59
ZD No ity of Sacramento (U.S
ZD No
Ambrose Barefoot \ ity of Wilmington (U.S
ZD No
Zd No
4 { ler (Tenn.), 391
v Agenci About More of Supervisors of Rockingham County \
n Moratoria,” No. 10 at 3 Stickley (Va.), 253
\ Amicus Activities,” No. 10 at6 Bd. of County Comm ‘ers v. Gartrell Inv’ment
U.S. Supreme Court Refusest e Case Name Index Co., LLC (Colo. App.), 231
Rule for Moratoria,” No. 5 at 7 Bell Atlantic-New Jersey, Inc. v. RiverdalZeo n
Sweet Affirmation A ng Bd. of Adjustment (N.J. App.), 527
\BKA Ltd. Partnership v. Wisconsin Dept. of Bellsouth Tel., Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach (U.S
Stuart, “Present at the Creation Natural Resources (Wis. App.), 166 App., 11th Cir.), 13
sonal Account of the APA Growing Abraham v. Township of Teaneck Ethics Bd Beloit, Towno f, v. County of Rock (Wis. App.), 223
SM) Project No. 3 at3 (N.J. App.), 402 Ben’s Realty, Inc. v.T ownof Vienna (N.Y. App.)
um, Dwight H., “What the Supreme Court ACLU Nebraska Foundation v. City of Platts 5)
Didn't Decide in Talioe-Sier No. 6 at 13 mouth (U.S. trial, Neb.), 328 Benchmark Land Co. v. City of Battle Ground
Thomas | \ Takings Blockbuster Ahearn v. Town of Wheatland (Wyo.), 303 (Wash.), 504
riumph for Planning No. 6 at 4 Akootchook v. United States (U.S. App., 9th Bi-County Dev. of Clinton, Inc. v. Borough of
Russel, Joel S., “Massac |h usetts Land-Use Laws Cir.), 169 High Bridge (N.J. App.), 157
lime for a Change,” No. 1 at3 \laska RR. Corp. v. Native Village of Eklutna Birdsboraond Birdsboro Mun. Auth. v. Dept. of
Stroud, Nancy | And the Walls Came Tum- (Alaska), 367 Env’! Protection (Pa. Commw. Ct.), 451
bling Down No. 9 at3 \lbuquerque, City of, v. Municipal Boundary Blue Canary Corp. v. City of Milwaukee (U.S
Sullivan, Edward J Too Clever for Words Comm'n (N.M. App.), 331 App., 7th Cir.), 206
The Demise of Oregon’s Measure 7,” No. 11 ALC Dev. Corp. v. Walker (Me.), 285 Blumenthal Inv’ment Trusts v. City of West Des
ato Alexis, Inc. v. Pinellas County (U.S. trial, Fla.), 374 Moines (lowa), 240
larlock, A. Dan, and Lora A. Lucero, “Connect Am. Civil Liberties Union v. Hamilton County Boehm v. City of Vancouver (Wash. App.), 505
ing Land, Water, and Growth,” No. 4 at 3 (U.S. trial, Tenn.), 518 Bollech v. Charles County, Maryland (U.S. trial,
Witten, John Affordable Housing—At What American Tower Corp. v. Common Council of Md.), 139
Price?” No. 1 at6 the City of Beckley (W.Va.), 298 Bondsv . Carter (Ark.), 519
American Family Ass’n, Inc. v. City and County Boney Publishers, Inc. v. Burlington City Coun-
of San Francisco (U.S. App., 9th Cir.), 274 cil (N.C \pp.), 611
American Tower LP v. City of Huntsville (U.S Borden Ranch Partnership v. U.S. Army Corps
App., 11th Cir.), 615 of Engineers (U.S. App., 9th Cir.), 93
American Tower LP v. City of Grant (Minn.), 184 Bragdon v. Town of Vassalboro (Me.), 69
\mmirata v. Zoning Bd. of Appeaolfs t he Town Brahm v. Beavercreek Township (Ohio App.), 154
of Redding (Conn. App.) 127 Braunagel v. City of Devils Lake (N.D.), 147
Land Use Law & Zoning Digest December 2002
indexes
December 2002 Land Use Law & Zoning Digest
Gelinas v. Towno f West Hartford (Conn. App.) Heuer v. County of Aitkin (Minn
Hildale, City of, v.C ooke (Utah)
nn v. City of Grant City (Mo. App.), 365 Hirshfield \ 2 (Cal. App.), 5
Sheffield Dev. Co lochstedler v. St. Joseph County Solid Waste
ManagemenDits t. (Ind \pp.), 486
zens for Buji Park (Nev.) Mecklenburg County Zoning
N.C. App.), 304
umber Co. v. Howard (N.C. App Holbrook, Inc. v.C lark County (Wash. App
ity of Mexico (Mo. App.), 309 Home Builders Ass’n of Greater Des Moin
omez v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of City of W. Des Moines (lowa), 323
Islip (N.Y. App. Div.), 472 Home Depot USA, Inc. \
;ondelmanv . Districto f Columbia Dept. of Con Centre (N.Y. App.), 522
sumer and Regulatory Affairs (D.C. App.), 352 Home Depot, USA, Inc. v. Toowf nMou nt
s00d Neighbors of S. Davidson \ Town of ant (N.Y. App. Div.), 467
Denton (N.C 333 Homier Distributing Co., Inc. v. City of
;ooding County v. Wybenga (Idaho), 422 Bedford (U.S. trial, Mass.), 343
sould v. SantaFe County (N.M. App.), 189 Horan v. City of Federal Way (Wash. App
srand County v. Rogers (Utah), 414 Horton v. Citoyf St. Augustine (U.S. App
sranite City, City of, v. Houseo f Prayers, In« Cir.),215
(Il p.), 55¢ Housing Works, Inc. v. Kerik (U.S. App
rant v. City of Folly Beach (S.C.), 81 Cir.), 382
Grasso v. ZoningB d. of Appeals (Conn. App.), 42! Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass’‘n \
sreater Yellowstone Coalition, Inc. v.B d. of County Roseville (Cal App.) 420
Comm’ ers of Gallatin County (Mont.), 72 Howell Properties Inc. \ Tow nship
sreaton Properties, Inc Lower Merion Town (N.]. App.), 330
ship (Pa. Commw. Ct.), 450 Howell v. City of Lumberton (N.C. App
sreenbriar Village, LLC v. City of Mountain Hutchings v. Krachun (Wyo.), 590
Brook (U.S. trial, Ala.), 473
sriffel v. Reynolds (Idaho), 1 I
iftin \ Town of Dedham (Me.), 512 \pproval of Request for Amendment to
riswold v. City of Homer Alaska), 172 Frawley Planned Unit Dev.(S.D.), 296
in. Servs. v. City of Brevard (N.C \pplication of the Township of Jackson
N.J. App.), 454
Ametno Redcreamtion eandn Opetn Sp ace
H Inventory of the City of Plainfield (N.J. App.)
Haas v. County of San Bernardino (Calif 71
Hackett v. Bd. of Adjustment of the City of Charlotte Farm & Mills (Vt.), 92
Rehoboth Beach (Del.), 372 the General Adjudication
Hage v. United States (Fed. Cl.), 272 (Ariz.), 226
Hall v. Norton (U.S. App., 9th Cir.), 145 Condemnation by the City of Minneapolis
Hall v. U.S. EPA (U.S. App., 9th Cir.), 73 (Minn.), 71
‘lopment, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County re Dunnett (Vt.), 124
White (Vt.), 91
Family Homes of Annexatoif oSmnit h Property (Wis. App.), 90
Ass’n (U.S. trial re Eller Media Co.’s Applications (Minn. App.)
mah County ton Bays Connections, Inc $3]
83 Adoption of Amendment to N.J. Admin
Town of Oyster Hannav . City of Chicago (Ill. App Code (N.J. App.), 26
Harbours Pointeo f Nashotah, LLC Conditional Use Permit Denied to Meier
Nashotah (U.S. App 7th Cit (S.D.), 508
448 Harris v. Zoning Comm'n (Conn Kisiel (Vt.), 46
reedon County \ Harwood vy. Talbert (Idaho), 281 e Freshwater Wetlands (N.J. App.), 599
Haugen v. Kottas (Mont.), 244 Indiana Civil Liberties Union v. O'Bannon (U.S
Hausam v. City of Salem (Ore. App.), 264 App., 7th Cir.), 95
Hawthorne v. Village of Olympia Fields (III lustrial Rentals, Inc. v. New Castle County
App.), 4 of Adjustment (Del.), 1(
Hays County v. Hays County Water Planning Interstate Northborough Partnership v. State
Partnership (Tex. App.), 354 (Tex.), 337
Area School Dist. v. Zoning Hearing Irvin Water District v. Jackson Partnership (Wash
A\pp-), 204
Hedrick v.G rant County Pub. Serv. Dist. (W.Va.) Isbell v. City of San Diego (U.S. App., 9th Cir.), 52
109 Isla Verde Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. City of Camas
Heilker v.Z oning Bd. of Appeals (S.C., App.), 158 (Wash.), 503
Heine Farms v. Yankton County (S.D.), 583
1.of the Townof I Henderson v. Kennedy (U.S. App., D.C. Cir.), 96 J
Conn.), 1 Hennessy v. Fairley (Me.), 449 ].L. Matthews, Inc. v. Maryland-National Capital
County of Sonoms \pp.), 54 Hentz v. City of Spearfish (S.D.), 582 Park and Planning Comm'n (Md. App.), 428
PlanningBd . (¢ = : 235 Herr v. Pequea Township (U.S. App., 3rd Cir.), 185 ].W. Mays, Inc. v. State (N.Y. A 719
Land Use Law & Zoning Digest December 2002
indexes
6 December 2002 Land Use Law & Zoning Digest
Judicial Decisions
Q S’western Illinn ois Dev
\ V. IInni]>} nd Wetlands Comm'n of ronmental, |
the Town of Branford (Conn.), 57 Sateway, Inc \
Owest Broadband Services, In« Salmon v. City of Bloon
der (U:S. tri Colo 123 mish Commun
levue (Wash
San Remo Hotel
Francisco (Cal
Sanderson v. Towonf ¢
Santa Fe, County of, of v. Milagro Wirele ss, LLC
: N.M. App
Rayle v. Town of Cato Bd
ounty
Reardon Mo. App
Red Roo City of Ridg
verge Voyen et
he Town of
wp}I ro \
\ onway
City of Kelso
River }
Wvyo %( ()
Resources \ I Sonopress, Inc Town of Weaverville (N.C
), 40 \pp.), 435
v. County of Clark (Ll Spanish Cove Sanitation, Inc. \
Jefferson County Met. Sewer Dist (Ky
yn v. City of Tucson (Ariz Spinella \ Town of Paris Zoning Bd. (N.Y. Sup
Ct.), 591
Auth. v. Nat'l City Envi Spirit Lake Tril xe v. N. Dakota (U.S \pp., 8th
ronmental, LL¢ 482 Cir.), 119
Land Use Law & Zoning Digest December 2002
indexes
8 December 2~ 002 Land Use Law & Zoning Digest
___ Judicial Decisions
Daniel v. County of Santa Barbara (U.S C
Index by State 9th Cir.), 418
Deltakeeper v. Oakdale Irrigation Dist v. Bd. of County Comr
App.), 229 of Boulder (U.S. App Mth Cit
ALABAMA
y. Cite ol Echevarrieta \ of Rancho Palos Verdes Empire Lodge Homeowners’ As
Cal. App Colo.), 278
Dorado Palm Spring 1. v. City of Palm Essence Federa
>prings (¢ App
Norton( | v. Smith (Colo.)
Owest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boul
yunty of Sonoma (Cal. App.) S. trial, Colo.), 123
County of San Bernardino (Calif.) Transp. Dist utdoor Systems, |
1 v.S chwartz (Cal. App.), 5 ) 19
Howard Jarvis Taxpa Ass'n \ Roaring Fork ¢
Roseville (¢
yell v. Citv of San go (U.S. App., 9th Cit
Los Osos Community Serv’s Dist. (|
T Guymon
Santa Monica Mountains
App.), 475
CONNECTICUT
is Of San Luis Obispo v. City of San ZoningB d. of Appea
uis Obispo (U.S. trial, Cal.), 368 of Redding (Conn. App.), 12
ns for Honest Gov't v.N apa County posporos Urban Redevelopment Comm
isors (Cal App 53
er Comm. v. Solano County Bd
App 2
omm’‘n(Conn.), 2
v. Zoning Bd. of App
Gadbois v. Planning Comm'n of the Town of I
11
*lanning Bd. (Conr
Towno f West Hartford
Marin County
\pp 3] Z7o nisningo BdR . ot
S. App., 9th Cir.), 476
of, v. Abrams Comm
Tres Amigos Viejos
Kalimiat
Norwich '
»p 230 Munroe 7Zonins ppeals _ =2Q
an Bernard Murphy \ Zoning Comm'n of the Town of
New Milford (U.S. trial, Conn.), 9
ssocs. v. Bacon (Cal. App st Connecticut Economic
keeper, Inc. v. Browner( 1 ATC Partnership (Conn.), 58
ways, Inc. v. Plananndi Znonging Comm'n
ity and County of San
Pequonnock Yacht Club, Inc. v. City of Bridge
} go City Council (Cal port (Conn.), 320
CALIFORNIA ae i Valley RR ancheria \ Friends of Ea Pestey v. Cushman ( Conn.), 131
Cal App ) 530 Pinchbeck v. Planning and Zoning Comm’n
Bosworth (U.S. trial, Cal.), 600 onn.), 479
il Court Homeowners Ass‘n v. County of Queach Corp. v. Inla Wetlands Comm'n of
Cal. App.), 275 the Town of Branford (Conn.), 5
ounty of Santa Cruz (Cal. App.), 532 » Doyen et al. v. Zoning B f Appeals of
Oth Cir ‘
County of Los Angeles (Cal \pp-), 261 the Town of Essex (Conn. App.), 129
Economy \ Sprint Spectrum, L.P. v. Connecticut Siting Coun
COLORADO cil (U.S. App., 2nd Cir.), 270
Animas Valley Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Bd. of laylor v. ZoningBd . of Appeaolfs t he Town of
County Comm ers of the County of La Plata Wallingford (Conn. App.), 130
Colo.), 126 Top of the Town, LLC v. Somers Sportsmen's
Bd. of County Comm ’ers v. Gartrell Inv’ment Ass'n (Conn.), 536
Co., LLC (Colo. App.), 231 Town of Westport v. Connecticut Siting Coun
Brotmanv . E. Lake Creek Ranch, LLP (Colo.), 118 cil (Conn.), 474
Chandler v. City of Arvada (U.S. App., 10th Westport, Town of, v. Connecticut Siting ( ouncil
(Conn.), 474
Land Use Law & Zoning Digest December 2002 9
Indexes
DELAWARI
FLORIDA
HAWAII
IDAHO
ILLINOIS
GEORGIA
tional Compressed Stee! ( rp. v. Unified Gov't
of Wyandotte County insas City (Kan.), 283
a i Dog Saloon \ ck County Bd. of
Comm'rs (Kan
December 2002 Land Use Law & Zoning Digest
Judicial Decisions
KENTUCKY Musto v. PlanningBd . of Medfield (Mass App.) MISSOURI
3urnside (U.S. App., 6th Cir he) 487 hesterfield Village, Inc. v. City of Chesterfield
inty Fiscal Court ( Ky National Tower LLC v. Plainville Zoning Bd. of (Mo \pp-) 310
\ppeals (U.S. App., Ist Cir.), 560 ity of St. Peters \ Ronald \. Winterhoff Liv
OakShanda &m Gra vel Corp. v. Toowf Onakh am ingM M Trust (Mo App.), 510
Mass. App 61) ousin’s Advertising, Inc
Pereezl ; iv . Bd ApPIp eals of Norwood (Mass justment (Mo. App 194
Glenn v. City of Grant City (Mo App.), 365
Schultz v. Kelly (1 S. trial, Mass.) 227+4 Goe v. City of Mexico (Mo. App.), 309
Zoning Bd. of \ppeals of Wellesley v Ardemore Leiser v. City of Wildwood (Mo. App.)I , 211
r
\partments I P. (Mass.), 429 Normandy School Dist. \ City of f Pasadena
Hills (Mo \pp.), 407
MICHIGAN Reardon v. Newell (Mo. App.), 565
Baton Rouge (La. App \nderson v. Charter Townosf hYpisilpant i Rose v. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment (Mo. App.), 326
rhood Organization \ App., oth Cir.), 142 ot Peters, City of, v. Ronald A. Winterhoff Liv
1e v. State Mich.), 121 ing Trust (Mo. App.), 510
Vieux Desert Band of | ake Superior State ex rel Remy v. Alexander (Mo. App.), 564
Chippewa Indians v. Michigan Gaming Con otate \ Bd. of Adjustment (Mo.), 312
trol Bd. (U.S. Ap} 6th Cir.), 287 Union Center Redev. Corp. \ ot Louis Preset
Pittstield Charter Township \ Washtenaw vation Bd ot Planning “4 and Urban Design
MAINI County (Mich. App.), 105 Mo. App.), 521
Walker (Me Schulz v. NorthPublvic iSclhoolls e(Mi ch. App.) Wolfner v. Bd. of Adjustment of the City ot
Carter (Me.), 464 a1e 7| Warson Woods (Mo. App.), 21
Me Silver Creek Township v. Corso (Mich. App.), 1 13 Woodson \ City of Kansas City (Mo A\rp p.), 598
Tow! of Wells Sprint Spectrum L.P. \ Charter Township of
West B3l oomfield (U.S. trial Mich.) Is MONTANA
nv. Zwit (Mich.), 562 Dome Mountain Ranch, LLC v. Park County
is\ Preston (Mich App.) 183 (Mont.), 243
wWiIs\ Preston (Mich App.) 430 Englin\ Bd. of County Comm ers (Mont.), 490
trial Mich.), 404 Greater Yellowstone Coalition, Inc. v.B d. of County
Comm’ers of Gallatin County (Mont.), 72
MINNESOTA Haugen \ Kottas (Mont.), 244
American Tower LP y City of Grant (Minn.), 184 Mesa Communications Group LLC \ Yellow
NZ Me Buss \ Johnson Minn. App.), 19 stone County (Mont.), 470
rCo., LLC Dale Properties, LLC v. State (Minn.) 288 Tungsten Holdings, Inc. \ Olson (Mont.) 566
nized for Responsible Heuer v. County of Aitkin (Minn. App.), 514 Wells \ Young (Mont ) 189
re Condemnation by the City of Minneapolis Williams v Schwager (Mont.), 491
Minn.), 71
Eller Media Co.’s Applications (Minn \pp.) NEBRASKA
MARYLAND 43] ACLL Nebraska Foundation \ City of Platts
LLC v. Par Kramer v. Otter Tail County Bd. of Comm rs (Minn mouth (U.S. trial Neb.), 328
Marvland App.), 593 ity of Lincoln \ Central Platte Natural Re
Marshall County v. State (Minn. App.), 213 sources Dist. (Neb.) 307
Minnesota Center for Env’l Advocacy \ Min DHL, Inc. v. | ancaster County Bd. of Comm'rs
nesota Pollution Control Agency (Minn.), 488 (Neb.), 609
Mohler v. City of St. LouParik s(Min n. App.), 432 Lincoln City of, \ Central Platte Natural Re
N. States Power Co. v. City of Mendota Heights sources Dist. (Neb.), 307
Minn App.) 563 Premium Farms v. County of Holt (Neb.), 327
Nordmarken \ City of Richfield (Minn. App Ways v. City of Lincoln (U.S. App., 8th Cir 209
nes
$55
P)i cha \ County of McLeod (Minn App.) 94 NEVADA
Rostamkhani v. City of St. Paul (Minn. App.), 524 City of Las Vegas Downtown Redev Agency \
Sunrise Lake Assoc., Inc. v. Chisago County Bd Crockett (Nev ) 186
MASSACHUSETTS of Comm'rs (Minn. App.), 70 Glover v. Concerned Citizens for Buji Park (Ne\
Can ero! DiVirgilio (Mass. App 60S West Circle Properties, LLC v. Hall (Minn. App.) 6
Chandler \ County Comm’'ers (Mass.) 559 143 Hage v. United States (Fed. Cl.), 272
one isset Heights Ltd. v. Zoning Bd or Ap Hall v. Norton (U.S. App., 9th Cir.), 145
pec ils of Cohasset Mass. App.), 141 MISSISSIPPI Hall v. U.S. EPA (U.S. App9th .Cir,.), 73
Homier Distributing Co Inc. v. City of New Burgess v. City of Gulfport (Miss.), 468 as Vegas Downtown Redev. Agency, City of
Bedtord U.S.t i 343 Dieck \ Landry (Miss.), 144 v. Crockett (Nev.) 186
Dittmer \ County of Suffolk (U.S trial, N.Y.) west Advertising, Inc. v. County of Clark (U.S
108 trial, Nev », S17 7
bus, Council # Ladner v. Harrison County Bd. of Supervisors ahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v Tahoe
Lexington App Ist Cir.), 182 (Miss.), 102 Regional Planning Agency (U.S.), .3 29
Kosla v. Bd. of Appoef Haoldeln s(Ma ss. App.) Norwood \ Extension of the Boundaries of the S. v.O rr Water Ditch Co. (U.S. App., 9th Cir.)
125
% | City of Itta Bena (Miss.), 20
Macone \ Town of Wakefield (U.S. App Ils tt Red Roof Inns, Inc. v. City of Ridgeland (Miss.), U.S. v. State Engineer (Nev.), 22
C ir 2- 86 9709
Land Use Law & Zoning Digest December 2002 1]
NEW HAMPSHIRI
NEW JERSEY
NEW YORK
NORTH CAROLINA
NEW MEXICO
12 December 2M 002 Land Use Law & Zoning Digest