533US2 606 Unit U85 10 19 02 15 38 30 PAGES PGT OPIN OCTOBER TERM 2000 Syllabus PALAZZOLO v RHODE ISLAND et al certiorari to the supreme court of rhode island No 99 2047 Argued February 26 2001 Decided June 28 2001 In order to acquire the waterfront parcel of Rhode Island land that is here at issue petitioner and associates formed Shore Gardens Inc SGI in 1959 After SGI purchased the property petitioner bought out his associates and became the sole shareholder Most of the property was then and is now salt marsh subject to tidal flooding The wet ground and permeable soil would require considerable fill before significant structures could be built Over the years SGI s intermittent applications to develop the property were rejected by various government agencies After 1966 no further applications were made for over a decade Two intervening events however become important to the issues presented First in 1971 the State created respondent Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council Council and charged it with protecting the State s coastal properties The Council s regulations known as the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Program CRMP designated salt marshes like those on SGI s property as protected coastal wetlands on which development is greatly limited Second in 1978 SGI s corporate charter was revoked and title to the property passed to petitioner as the corporation s sole shareholder In 1983 petitioner applied to the Council for permission to construct a wooden bulkhead and fill his entire marshland area The Council rejected the application concluding inter alia that it would conflict with the CRMP In 1985 petitioner filed a new application with the Council seeking permission to fill 11 of the property s 18 wetland acres in order to build a private beach club The Council rejected this application as well ruling that the proposal did not satisfy the standards for obtaining a special exception to fill salt marsh whereby the proposed activity must serve a compelling public purpose Subsequently petitioner filed an inverse condemnation action in Rhode Island Superior Court asserting that the State s wetlands regulations as applied by the Council to his parcel had taken the property without compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments The suit alleged the Council s action deprived him of all economically beneficial use of his property resulting in a total taking requiring compensation under Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council 505 U S 1003 and sought 3 150 000 in damages a figure derived from an appraiser s estimate as to the value of a 74 lot residential subdivision on the property The court ruled against 533US2 Unit U85 10 19 02 15 38 30 PAGES PGT OPIN Cite as 533 U S 606 2001 607 Syllabus petitioner and the State Supreme Court affirmed holding that 1 petitioner s takings claim was not ripe 2 he had no right to challenge regulations predating 1978 when he succeeded to legal ownership of the property 3 he could not assert a takings claim based on the denial of all economic use of his property in light of undisputed evidence that he had 200 000 in development value remaining on an upland parcel of the property and 4 because the regulation at issue predated his acquisition of title he could have had no reasonable investment backed expectation that he could develop his property and therefore he could not recover under Penn Central Transp Co v New York City 438 U S 104 124 Held 1 This case is ripe for review Pp 617 626 a A takings claim challenging application of land use regulations is not ripe unless the agency charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding their application to the property at issue Williamson County Regional Planning Comm n v Hamilton Bank of Johnson City 473 U S 172 186 A final decision does not occur until the responsible agency determines the extent of permitted development on the land MacDonald Sommer Frates v Yolo County 477 U S 340 351 Petitioner obtained such a final decision when the Council denied his 1983 and 1985 applications The State Supreme Court erred in ruling that notwithstanding those denials doubt remained as to the extent of development the Council would allow on petitioner s parcel due to his failure to explore other uses for the property that would involve filling substantially less wetlands This is belied by the unequivocal nature of the wetland regulations at issue and by the Council s application of the regulations to the subject property The CRMP permits the Council to grant a special exception to engage in a prohibited use only where a compelling public purpose is served The proposal to fill the entire property was not accepted under Council regulations and did not qualify for the special exception The Council determined the use proposed in the second application the beach club did not satisfy the compelling public purpose standard There is no indication the Council would have accepted the application had the proposed club occupied a smaller surface area To the contrary it ruled that the proposed activity was not a compelling public purpose Although a landowner may not establish a taking before the land use authority has the opportunity using its own reasonable procedures to decide and explain the reach of a challenged regulation e g MacDonald supra at 342 once it becomes clear that the permissible uses of the property are known to a reasonable degree of certainty a takings claim is likely to have ripened Here the Council s decisions make plain that 533US2 608 Unit U85 10 19 02 15 38 30 PAGES PGT OPIN PALAZZOLO v RHODE ISLAND Syllabus it interpreted its regulations to bar petitioner from engaging in any filling or development on the wetlands Further permit applications were not necessary to establish this point Pp 618 621 b Contrary to the State Supreme Court s ruling petitioner s claim is not unripe by virtue of his failure to seek permission for a use of the property that would involve development only of its upland portion It is true that there was uncontested testimony that an upland site would have an estimated value of 200 000 if developed And while the CRMP requires Council approval to develop upland property lying within 200 feet of protected waters the strict compelling public purpose test does not govern proposed land uses on property in this classification Council officials testified at trial moreover that they would have allowed petitioner to build a residence
View Full Document
Unlocking...