FLOOD05954 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

September 1983 Page 3 e 3. Taking. e The Fifth Amendment to the U. S . Constitution provides that private property cannot be taken by the federal government without just compensation. The Colorado Consti- tution also prohibits the taking of private property for public use in Article II, ! 15. A zoning ordinance may be challenged on the ground that the restrictions placed on the use of the property are so severe as to constitute a taking. There have been several cases in which floodplain zoning ordinances were challenged as an unconstitutional taking. In Dooley ~ ~ Planning and Zoning Commission 2i ~ ~ of Fairheld, 151 Conn. 304, 197 A.2d 770 (1964), the court found that a floodplain zoning ordinance had restricted land use to the point where the landowner had no reasonable or practical means of obtaining income or a return from his property. The court held that even though the purpose of the ordinance was laudable, the plaintiff had been deprived of any worthwhile rights or benefits in his land and therefore the ordinance was an unconstitutional taking. More recent cases have taken a completely different approach to the taking issue. Courts have looked at the purpose of the zoning ordinance in question. If the purpose of the restriction is to create a public benefit, then the ordinance constitutes a taking which can only be done through eminent domain. If, however, the purpose of the restriction is to prevent a public harm, then the ordinance will not be considered a taking regardless of the use restrictions placed on.a landowner's property. Note, also, that in determining the purposes of the use restrictions courts have looked to the enumerated purposes stated in the zoning ordinance. This approach was taken in Usdin v. state of New Jersev Dept. of Environmental protection, 173--N.J. super. Ct. Law Div. 31r; 414 A.2d 280 (1980); Just v. Marinette county, 56 Wis.2d 7, 201 N.W.2d 761 (1972); and TUrn~ike Realty Company ~ ~ 2i Dedham, 72 Mass. 1303, 284 N.E.2d 891 (1972). The rat~ona1e behind this approach is explained in Usdin v. State of New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, supra. There tile court stated: Government must have the unfettered ability to protect the general welfare of its citizens without Subjecting them to bearing the cost. IL this was not true then the greater the need for protection, with consequential public cost bearing, the less likely government would act to defend the rights of citizens who, in practicality, are unable to protect e