991 F.3d 907
8th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs: two landowners (Pietsch and Irwin as trustee) plus Ward County Farm Bureau and County Farmer’s Union challenge Ward County’s plat dedication ordinance requiring dedications of rights-of-way to meet road-width standards.
- Plaintiffs sought plat approval without required dedications and applied for variances; County Board reviews variances by paper or at zoning meetings and records decisions in minutes.
- Plaintiffs alleged the variance procedure violated procedural due process (Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments); they expressly disavowed a Takings claim in district court.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the County; plaintiffs appealed to the Eighth Circuit.
- The Eighth Circuit held the plaintiffs’ claims improperly recast Takings precedent as due process, found the ordinance served a legitimate governmental interest (road provision) and was not truly irrational, and concluded plaintiffs received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Nollan/Dolan set procedural due process floor for variances | Nollan/Dolan require nexus/proportionality protections for variance review | Nollan/Dolan are Takings/unconstitutional-conditions cases and do not establish a due process floor | Court: Nollan/Dolan apply to Takings claims; plaintiffs may not recast Takings as due process |
| Whether the dedication ordinance is irrational | Pietsch: ordinance (and its application) is arbitrary/irrational | Ward Cty: ordinance furthers legitimate interest in public roads and is rational | Court: ordinance is not truly irrational; it furthers legitimate road-provision goals |
| Whether plaintiffs received sufficient procedural due process on variances | Plaintiffs: variance procedure denied adequate process | County: applicants received individualized notice and an opportunity to be heard | Court: notice and hearing were adequate under Anderson/Mathews framework |
| Whether alleged exactions require Nollan/Dolan review via due process | Plaintiffs: dedication could be an exaction requiring nexus/proportionality analysis | County: any exaction claim is a Takings claim, with available Takings remedies | Court: remedy for unconstitutional exactions lies under Takings doctrine (Koontz/Nollan/Dolan), not via a separate due process claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (Takings/exactions doctrine articulating rough proportionality)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (Takings/unconstitutional conditions; essential nexus requirement)
- Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (extends Nollan/Dolan framework to permit-exaction claims)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (rejects substantive due process as substitute for Takings analysis)
- Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162 (availability of just compensation remedy under Takings Clause)
- Anderson v. Douglas Cty., 4 F.3d 574 (8th Cir.) (procedural due process in land-use: notice and opportunity to be heard)
- Koscielski v. City of Minneapolis, 435 F.3d 898 (8th Cir.) (due process challenge to zoning requires action be truly irrational)
- Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (balancing test for procedural due process)