When the Conservation Commission refused to permit the construction of a house on her residential lot in a Falmouth subdivision, Janice Smyth decided to take action and sought damages for a regulatory taking of her land under the U.S. Constitution and the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.  She was successful initially, recovering damages of $640,000.  But, in Smyth v. Conservation Commission of Falmouth, the Appeals Court reversed the lower court’s decision.

Continue Reading No Damages to Owner Whose Lot Is Unbuildable Due to Wetlands Regulations

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (pdf).  The court split 5-4 along the usual lines.  According to the dissent, this decision may have a significant impact on real estate developers and the boards and commissions that regulate them.A1029221.jpg

The plaintiff, Koontz, wanted to develop 3.7 acres of

In O’Brien Homes, Inc. v. Lunenberg Planning Board (pdf), Land Court Judge Keith C. Long upheld a five-acre minimum lot size requirement that the Town of Lunenberg imposes on subdivisions of more than 25 acres. iStock_000009465642XSmall.jpg

The zoning bylaw at issue (Section 5.6) is designed to encourage developers to preserve open space in developments of more than 25 acres.  In

It is a truth universally acknowledged that property owners don’t like restrictions on how they may use their land.  It is a truth equally acknowledged, however, that state and local governments can enact laws and regulations — zoning bylaws, environmental rules, nuisance statutes — that limit what landowners can do with their land.  Just when a law intended to protect the public goes too far, and limits the private use of land too much, so that it becomes a “regulatory taking” requiring compensation under the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions, is a question that has long bedeviled both the U.S. Supreme Court and our own Supreme Judicial Court (SJC).

The most recent response came in the SJC’s August 26, 2010 decision in Blair v. Dept. of Conservation and Recreation (pdf).  The Blair case concerned the Watershed Management Act, which prohibits alterations to land within 200 feet of the banks of waters within the watershed system that supplies drinking water.  The Blairs own a 2.87-acre parcel on Demond Pond in Rutland that contains a small cottage and a 60-foot sand beach on the pond.  They were barred from expanding the beach and constructing a retaining wall because that portion of their property is in the buffer zone.  The Blairs asserted that this restriction on their use of their property was a regulatory taking.

The SJC disagreed.  Relying on existing U.S. Supreme Court and SJC precedent, the court found that the statute on its face was not a taking, and did not constitute a physical taking of the property since it didn’t create an easement — it simply restricted use.

The main issue was whether the statute effected a regulatory taking.  This hinged on whether the regulation as applied to the Blairs’ property deprived them of all economically viable use of their parcel of land.  This question further hinges on how you define the “parcel.”  The U.S. Supreme Court has said that under the 5th Amendment, the relevant parcel is the entire parcel, not just the portion affected by the regulation.

Continue Reading SJC on Regulatory Takings: That Word Does Not Mean What You Think It Means