November 1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

such state action to constitute a taking. The court stated that unless a "precise match" existed between the proposed regulation to afford views of and access to the beach and the state interests imposing an affirmative regulation upon property owners was a ' taking. The exaction must "substantially advance" a clearly identifiable state interest. Ngllan established a new five -part test to determine whether or not the government may impose exactions upon private landowners. First, a legitimate governmental purpose must exist to justify the use of police power. Second, the courts consider and apply the traditional regulatory taking analysis. The third step involves the identification of adverse effects. Fourth the courts match the exaction to the adverse effects. And finally'^ the court engages in close scrutiny of the fairness of the ea In conclusion, the Noll�� decision stated that the regulation of land use is a coercive, adverse government action which restricts the exercise of a right of use intrinsic in ownership of property. As a condition for the abridgement of that use, the government has the burden to demonstrate that it is substantially advancing a legitimate state interest. The decision suggests that courts will henceforth look more closely to ensure that fairness and justness and paramount when considering individual rights of a property owner and corresponding public concerns. Moreover, the scope of the holding is significant, for it is not limited to a physical taking but extends to permit regulations imposed on property owners, and most likely would extend to a challenge of maintenance provisions in an historic district ordinance. I. Recent_Applications-of-the-Nollan-Test A 1988 case in the Washington Court of Appeals applies and reinforces the strict standards set by the Ngllan decision. In Unlimited_v._KitSaC)_CgLtnty, 50 Wash. App. 723, 750 P.2d 651 (Wash. App. 1988), the dispute arose out of the exaction by the county, without compensation, of two property interests as conditions for its issuance of a planned unit development permit. The County Engineer and Public Works Department required Unlimited to provide a public right-of-way and to dedicate a portion of its property for future extension of the development. Unlimited would not be compensated for these acts. Citing Ngllan as authority for its decision, the court held the exaction to be an unconstitutional taking. The court stated that police power is "properly exercised in zoning situations where the problem to be remedied by the exaction arises from the development under consideration, and the exaction is reasonable and for a legitimate public purpose. Unless these requirements are met, the exaction is an unconstitutional taking." 750 P.2d at 653. The holding illustrates the trend in recent cases that courts are less willing to uphold zoning regulations than interfere with private property ownership rights. C. FactLtal_Differentiation-from_Prior-Case-Law In addition to the new tests set by the above cases, factual �� /