Laserfiche WebLink
August 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 15 Zoning Bulletin <br />Thus, holding that the the Court of Appeals was correct to treat Lots E and <br />F as one parcel, the Court also concluded that the Court of Appeals was cor- <br />rect to conclude that the Murrs could not establish a compensable taking. <br />They had not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of their prop- <br />erty; they still could have a cabin on one of the lots or across both. Nor had the <br />regulation impeded their use of land through a significant economic impact or <br />interference with their investment backed expectations: The regulations <br />devalued the property by less than 10%, and the regulations predated the <br />Murrs' acquisition of both lots. Finally, the governmental action, noted the <br />Court, "was a reasonable land -use regulation, enacted as part of a coordinated <br />federal, state, and local effort to preserve the river and surrounding land." <br />See also: Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S. Ct. 158, 67 <br />L. Ed. 322, 28A.L.R. 1321 (1922). <br />See also: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. <br />Ct. 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798, 34 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1897, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. <br />21104 (1992). <br />See also: Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 150 L. <br />Ed. 2d 592, 52 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1609, 32 Envtl. L. Rep. 20516 (2001). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the Court emphasized that there is no "categorical rule" or "any simple <br />test" that all contiguous, commonly owned holdings must be combined for Takings <br />Clause analysis. Rather, the Court said that courts must "define the parcel in a manner <br />that reflects reasonable expectations of the property," through the application of the <br />multifactor standard that the Court laid out in its decision. <br />Conditional Use/Grounds for. Grant <br />or Denial —County grants <br />conditional use permit for funeral <br />home, and community members <br />appeal <br />Community members contend county failed to consider <br />adverse effects, including Asian community "cultural <br />aversion to the death industry" <br />Citation: Clarksville Residents Against Mortuary Defense Fund, Inc. v. <br />Donaldson. Properties, 2017 WL 2687761 (Md. 2017)) <br />MARYLAND (06/22/17)—This case addressed the issues of whether, in <br />granting a conditional use permit for a funeral home, a county board of ap- <br />peals was required to: apply a zoning regulation that related generally to pub- <br />6 © 2017 Thomson Reuters <br />