|
Zoning Bulletin August 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 15
<br />the whole value of Lot E was "taken" by the regulations. And, again,
<br />Wisconsin had argued that the "denominator" was Lots E and F together as
<br />one parcel, such that any value of Lot E that was "taken" by the regulations
<br />was only a portion, and not all, of the parcel. The Court agreed with Wisconsin.
<br />The Court held that, for the purposes of determining whether a regulatory tak-
<br />ing occurred here, the proper unit of property against which to assess the ef-
<br />fect of the challenged regulations was the single parcel consisting of Lots E
<br />and F together.
<br />In reaching that conclusion, the Court emphasized that "no single consider-
<br />ation can supply the exclusive test for determining the denominator." Instead,
<br />said the Court, courts must consider a number of factors, including: the treat-
<br />ment of the land under state and local law; the physical characteristics of the
<br />land; and the prospective value of the regulated land. Moreover, the court said,
<br />"[t]he endeavor should determine whether reasonable expectations about prop-
<br />erty ownership would lead a landowner to anticipate that his holdings would
<br />be treated as one parcel, or, instead, as separate tracts." More specifically, the
<br />Court provided the following "multifactor standard":
<br />First, courts should give substantial weight to the property's treatment, in particu-
<br />lar how it is bounded or divided, under state and Local law. Second, courts must
<br />look to the property's physical characteristics, including the physical relationship
<br />of any distinguishable tracts, topography, and the surrounding human and ecologi-
<br />cal environment. Third, courts should assess the property's value under the chal-
<br />lenged regulation, with special attention to the effect of burdened land on the
<br />value of other holdings.
<br />Here, applying that standard, the Court first found that the treatment of the
<br />property under state and local law indicated that the Murrs' property "should
<br />be treated as one when considering the effects of the restrictions." The state
<br />and local regulations merged Lots E and F. The merger provision, held the
<br />Court, was a legitimate exercise of government power. Moreover, noted the
<br />Court, the Murrs' land was subject to that regulatory burden only because of
<br />the "voluntary conduct in bringing the lots under common ownership after the
<br />regulations were enacted." Thus, concluded the Court, the valid merger of
<br />Lots E and F under state and local law "informs the reasonable expectation
<br />that they [would] be treated as a single property."
<br />Applying the second factor, the Court concluded that the physical character-
<br />istics of the Murrs' property supported its treatment as a unified parcel. The
<br />lots' rough terrain, narrow shape, and location along the river, all led to the
<br />reasonable expectation that their uses may be limited and subject to public
<br />regulation, said the Court.
<br />Applying the third factor, the Court concluded that the prospective value
<br />that Lot E brought to Lot F supported considering the two as one parcel for
<br />purposes of determining whether there was a regulatory taking. While the
<br />Murrs were prohibited from selling Lots E and F separately, that restriction
<br />was, found the Court, "mitigated by the benefits of using the property as an
<br />integrated whole, allowing increased privacy and recreational space, plus the
<br />optimal location of any improvements." More specifically, noted the Court,
<br />the combined lots were valued at $698,300, which was far greater than the
<br />summed value of the separate regulated lots (Lot F with its cabin at $373,000,
<br />and Lot E at $40,000, according to values submitted by the Respondents and
<br />the Murrs).
<br />© 2017 Thomson Reuters
<br />
|