Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court considered how to define the relevant parcel in a regulatory takings analysis involving two contiguous lots owned by the plaintiff. The court held that contiguous commonly owned property is presumptively treated as one parcel, and that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to sever the lots. It affirmed summary judgment for the conservation commission, concluding that the wetlands bylaw did not effect either a categorical taking under Lucas or a taking under the Penn Central factors.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Giovanella's regulatory takings claim was ripe because the commission had reached a final decision.
- Whether Giovanella had exhausted available state remedies.
- What property constituted the relevant parcel or denominator for measuring the alleged regulatory taking.
- Whether the wetlands bylaw effected a categorical taking under Lucas.
- Whether application of the wetlands bylaw constituted a taking under the Penn Central factors.
Holdings
- The regulatory takings claim was ripe because the commission reached a final decision after considering revised plans and being informed that the proposed house could not be moved farther from the buffer zone.
- Giovanella exhausted available state remedies, and he was not required to pursue an inverse-condemnation action before bringing the identical regulatory-takings claim.
- For regulatory-takings analysis, contiguous commonly owned property is presumed to constitute one relevant parcel, but the presumption is rebuttable and may be overcome by additional factual and regulatory factors.
- Giovanella's two contiguous lots constituted one relevant parcel because he failed to present affirmative evidence that he intended to or actually did treat them as separate economic units.
- No categorical taking occurred because, considering both lots as the relevant parcel, the regulation did not deprive Giovanella of all economically beneficial use of the property.
- Application of the wetlands protection bylaw did not constitute a taking under the Penn Central factors.
Key quotations
“We conclude that the extent of contiguous commonly-owned property gives rise to a rebuttable presumption defining the relevant parcel.” (447 Mass. at 729)
“This presumption in favor of contiguity may be overcome to either increase or decrease the size of the parcel by the application of additional factors, including those described above.” (447 Mass. at 729)
“It is not the commission’s burden to show that the lots were treated as one unit under a “common development scheme.” Rather, it is Giovanella’s burden to show that he intended to, or actually did, treat them separately.” (447 Mass. at 733)
Factual background
Giovanella purchased contiguous lots in Ashland for $130,000; one lot contained his residence and the other contained a wetland. After Ashland adopted a wetlands protection bylaw barring work within a twenty-five-foot buffer zone absent satisfactory protections, the commission denied Giovanella's application to build a house on the undeveloped lot. Giovanella later sold the developed lot for $319,900, while an appraiser concluded that the undeveloped lot had no value by itself, subject to a possible reassessment as undevelopable land.
Procedural history
Giovanella sued in the Superior Court seeking annulment of the commission's decision and damages under the Fifth Amendment. The Superior Court determined that the relevant parcel included both contiguous lots, concluded that Giovanella had not shown sufficient economic harm or a reasonable investment-backed expectation, and entered summary judgment for the commission. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted direct appellate review and affirmed.