State ex rel. King Road Holdings, Ltd. v. Lucas County Engineer, et al.

Summary

The Sixth District Court of Appeals affirmed judgment on the pleadings against King Road Holdings, Ltd. in its mandamus action seeking appropriation proceedings or other relief based on traffic-signal-related delays to access its property. The court held that the traffic signal and stop bar regulated traffic, did not eliminate or reroute an access point, and created only brief intermittent impediments shared with the general public. Accordingly, the alleged interference did not constitute a compensable taking as a matter of law.

Holdings

1. The installation of the traffic signal and placement of the stop bar did not create compensable circuity of travel to or from, or within, King Road Holdings' property. The brief, intermittent delays did not constitute a substantial, material, or unreasonable interference with physical access.
2. The trial court properly granted judgment on the pleadings because the alleged variation in the length and frequency of traffic delays was immaterial to the legal issue. Even accepting those allegations as true, the signal did not eliminate access and the inconvenience was shared with the general public.
3. The Penn Central factors do not apply to claims involving interference with the right of access to an abutting roadway. The applicable test is whether the government's action substantially or unreasonably interfered with the landowner's access right.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the traffic signal and stop bar substantially, materially, or unreasonably interfered with King Road Holdings' right of access so as to constitute a compensable taking.
2. Whether the trial court improperly resolved factual disputes or failed to apply the Civ.R. 12(C) standard in granting judgment on the pleadings.
3. Whether the Penn Central regulatory-taking factors apply to a claim alleging interference with access to an abutting roadway.

Disposition

affirmed