Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/06/2006

Home

Page 4-- March 10, 2006 tions inspired more confidence than Campbell's more nonchalant approach. Consequently, there was no evidence of an illegal prejudice against Campbell. see also: ~[atthews ~ Columbia Coz~nty, 294 E3d 1294 (2002). see also: 3,[ason v. Village of El Portal, 240 F. 3d 1337 (2001). , Talcing --Landlo rd fights single-family restriction Claims restriction violates Constitution Citation: d~rett ~ Temkina, ~S. District Court for the District of Ma~sachzzsetts, IVo. 05-11542-RGS (2006) lVLkSSACHUSETTS (01/23/06) -- Th~ Town of Hamilton Building Inspector was summoned to Temkina's property, by the local police. Upon arriving at the property, the building inspector noticed that the upper and lower levels of the house had been divided into separate rental units in violation of the town's single-family zoning restriction. After obtaining copies ofleases for the two rental units, the building inspector commenced an enforce- ment action iagainst Temkina. In the fa'ce of the enforcement action, Temkina argued that the town's single- family zoning restriction was a violation of her constitutional rights and an unlawful talcing of her property. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the town. Ternkina's constitutional rights were not violated. To state a deprivation of property, claim under the Fifth Amendment, the claimant had to allege a talcing by the federal government. However, the federal government was not enforcing the restriction. Temkina's allegation that the town's actions caused her property "to sig- nificantly diminish in vaine," resulting in a "significant economic impact," also failed to state a claim for a taking under the 14th Amendment. A compensable taldng could occur when governmental action deprived an owner of his or her interest in a property by prohibiting its use for virtually any economically beneficial purpose. However, zoning laws are classic examples of permissible government action, even when prohibiting the most beneficial use of the property. At most, Temkma could argue that she could derive more income from her property by renting it to multiple tenants if not for the single-family restriction in the town's zoning bylaws. However, she could not argue that by restr/cting tenancies to one family per residence, the town deprived her of ali beneficial use of her property. see also: Corm v. Gabbert, 143 L.£d. Ld 399 (f999). see also: [glesias v. ,,!,[utual Life l~surance Co. of'~Vew York, 156 F~3d 237 (199~). 102 2006 Quinla. o Pul~listqing Group. Any reproouctlon is prohibited. For more information please call (617} 542-0048.