Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/01/2005

Home

? Z.B. November 10, 2005 -- Page 7 borhood, the government's regulation seemed to advance a common good or public purpose. see also: Keto v. City of New London, I25 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439 (2005). see also: District [ntown Properties Limited Partnership v. District of Columbia, 198 F. 3d 874 (1999). Taking -- City delays decision for 11 months Landowner's promised purchase falls through Citation: Byrd v. City of Hartsville, Supreme Court of South Carolina, No. 26040 (2005) SOUTH CAROLINA (09/19/05) --Byrd owned land that'was part of a National Historic Landmark (NHL). After the land was diVided and' sold piecemeal, the NHL designation remained over all of the parcels, including Byrd's land. ' Byrd wanted to subdivide his property and sellParcels to developers. He found someone interested in a small parcel of the tract of land..Th, us, he petitioned to have its zoning designation changed from agricultural to commercial use. The city council kept deferring action on the matter. It wanted to make sure that rezoning the parcel would not interfere with the area's NHL designation. After I1 months, the city rezoned Byrd's land. But by this time, Byrd's potential purchaser had lost the financing to buy the land. ~ Byrd sued, claiming the city had illegally taken his property. The court ruled in favor of the city. Byrd appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. There was no taking of Byrd's property. Byrd was not entitled to compensation merely because he had to obtain a zoning change to develop his property. Until a regulatory delay becames unrea- sonable, there was no taking. The length of delay alone was not determinative. Rather, the court consid- ered all relevant circumstances, including the reasons for the delay' and the economic impacts on Byrd. Finally, the court had to consider those impacts in relation to Byrd's entire interest in the small parcel. For 11 months, the city delayed action on the petition to zone the small parcel for commercial use. Preserving the NHL designation was a legitimate governmental interest, and delaying the zoning decision was a reasonable means of furthering that interest. Commercial development may have caused the Na- tional Park Service to remove the designation. There was no evidence that the city's interest ever became disproportionate to the economic impacts on Byrd. First, the delay did not affect the way that Byrd was using his land before the rezoning petition was filed. The land was zoned for agricultural use, and Byrd's ability to farm the land never was disturbed. Second, Byrd's only investment-backed expectation concerned the sale of © 2005 quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 65