The planning commission did not make a prompt decision, primarily because it realized that any decision would be unwelcome by some interested parties. At that time, it finally issued a decision refusing to approve the subdivision. It gave no formal reasons for its decision. The week after the planning commission issued its decision, the county supervisors issued a notice that they were considering rezoning the land back to A-1. After the necessary notice and hearing, and despite Farmer's strong objections, the supervisors did indeed rezone the land A-1 in in April 2000.
Farmer believes that the land has little or no value unless it can be subdivided.
A residential subdivision is, in his opinion, virtually the only practical use for the land. He also believes that the environmental opposition, based on the birds' use of the land, is essentially a sham, that there is no significant bird population using the land, and that the real opposition of the environmentalists is based on their desire to preserve open space for the county without paying for it. Farmer has consulted you, asking your opinion as to whether a suit against the county would be likely to succeed. He believes that the county supervisors and the planning commission are well aware that he is entitled to subdivide the land, and he would be pleased if he could obtain personal damages against them. Please write a memo to Farmer, discussing the legal theories that might plausibly be employed in a suit against the county and analyzing their probable treatment in the courts.