In a recent ruling, California property owner George Sheetz emerged victorious in a dispute regarding the constitutionality of a fee he was required to pay his local county to obtain a permit for building his home. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, upheld Sheetz’s position that conditions put on construction permits need to face heightened scrutiny even if pre-authorized by legislation – as opposed to being determined individually by administrators. Details of the decision can be read on SCOTUSblog.
The origins of the dispute date back to 2016 when Sheetz wanted to build a manufactured home on his lot in Placerville, Calif. El Dorado County told Sheetz he would have to pay a “traffic impact mitigation fee” before he could receive a permit. While Sheetz paid the fee, he also challenged the constitutionality of the fee in the state court.
Sheetz’s argument hinged on the stipulations in the Fifth Amendment’s takings clause, which prevents the government from acquiring private property for public use without offering adequate compensation. His contention was that whether or not the fee is constitutionally valid should be assessed based on the standards laid out by the Supreme Court cases Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, Oregon. According to these two cases, the government should demonstrate that the condition requiring the property owner to surrender property in lieu of land use permit is both closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the proposed land use.
The state courts rejected Sheetz’s proposal, opining that the Nollan/Dolan test only applies to fees imposed on an individual basis, unlike traffic impact mitigation fees, which receive authorization through legislation. The Supreme Court disagreed, with Justice Barrett opining that the takings clause has no indication of exempting fees imposed by legislatures. Moreover, the historical context also doesn’t espouse any special exemption for legislative takings. The court’s decision also didn’t cast a final verdict on other issues raised by Sheetz’s challenge about the validity of the fee with respect to permit conditions being tailored with the same degree of specificity whether they’re targeted at a class of properties or a specific development.
The case was remanded to state courts to further consider the legal arguments involved and their implications on the precedent as explained in the judgement.