The Connecticut Superior Court, following a trial, rejected a taking claim by a developer who purchased a non-conforming, unbuildable lot at a tax sale and was subsequently denied two minor variances to develop the lot. The court noted that all bidders had been advised in the publication that it was not guaranteed that the property they were bidding on was buildable, and the Town made no representations as to the suitability and character of the property. The plaintiffs purchased the property for $38,000 and had it appraised as a buildable lot at $150,000. However, the plaintiffs did not research the chain of title nor the applicable zoning regulations prior to purchasing the lot. The court ruled that the Lucas claim failed because, even if the lot was unbuildable, there was some evidence that the lot would have value to neighboring owners. The Court also ruled that the Penn Central claim failed because the plaintiff purchased the property with the regulatory restrictions already in place and failed to conduct any investigation prior to making the purchase into how the regulations might limit development.
Santos v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 2009 WL 1707631 (Conn. Super. 5/27/2009).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP100/100AP221.pdf
This abstract is from John Echeverria’s Takings Snapshots – Vermont Law School Takings-Net. To subscribe, send Prof. Echeverria an email at: jecheverria@vermontlaw.edu
I see no reference in this opinion to either Lucas or Penn Central. The opinion is about whether the denial of a setback variance was valid. Given that the lot was an illegally created lot the denial was upheld. Did I miss something?
By: Claude on October 27, 2009
at 7:47 am
The opinion on the takings issue is available at 2009 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1449.
By: Timothy Mulvaney on October 27, 2009
at 10:02 am