WASHINGTON — Editor's note: Video in this story is from previous coverage of this case.
El Dorado County landowner George Sheetz was handed a legal victory by the Supreme Court Friday, months after he went before them to fight a fee he argued was unconstitutional.
CASE HISTORY
Sheetz and his wife bought 10 acres of land outside of Placerville in 2016 and planned to install an 1,800-square-foot manufactured home.
He went to get a building permit after putting a deposit down on a manufactured home and the county charged him more than $23,000 for what was then-called a ‘traffic impact mitigation fee,’ used to fund public infrastructure like roads.
Since the time he was charged, the county now calls it the ‘Traffic Impact Fee Program’ and changed how it charges fees. In a previous story, one of Sheetz’ attorneys said the fee for his home would be less than half of what he charged under the new structure.
Sheetz fought the fee and lost, paying it under protest so they could move forward with the house.
He later took the county to court saying the fee was unconstitutional and too large compared to the size of the project.
He lost in trial court and at the California Court of Appeal. The California Supreme Court denied review, so they went to the U.S. Supreme Court who agreed to hear it in January 2024.
CASE DECISION
A decision in Sheetz v. El Dorado County, California was issued Friday, April 12. It was a unanimous decision written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
According to SCOTUSblog, who provides independent analysis of Supreme Court decisions, the justices sided with Sheetz that building permits should be under extra scrutiny even if they’re authorized by legislation rather than on a case-by-case basis.
The Supreme Court’s decision vacates the California Court of Appeal decision and Sheetz’ case is now headed back to the state court for further review.
WATCH MORE ON ABC10: Supreme Court hears cases on social media, centered around Florida law
