Summary
The South Carolina Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the City of Hartsville in an inverse-condemnation action arising from delays in rezoning property. The court held that regulatory takings claims involving temporary denial of less than all economically viable use are governed by the Penn Central framework, under which regulatory delay becomes compensable only if it is unreasonable considering the relevant circumstances. The court concluded that neither the eleven-month delay concerning a small parcel nor the two-month delay concerning the remainder of the city tract constituted a taking.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to the City on Byrd's regulatory inverse-condemnation claim.
- Whether temporary regulatory delays in processing zoning petitions constituted a compensable taking under the Penn Central framework.
- Whether South Carolina's inverse-condemnation test should omit permanence and public-use requirements in regulatory-takings cases.
Holdings
- A regulatory inverse-condemnation claim requires affirmative conduct by a government entity and a taking; the prior requirements of some degree of permanence and public use do not apply to regulatory takings.
- Penn Central governs a regulatory inverse-condemnation claim involving a temporary denial of less than all economically viable use of property.
- In a regulatory-delay case, the Penn Central inquiry is whether the delay became unreasonable, considering all relevant circumstances rather than the delay's length alone.
- Neither the eleven-month delay concerning the small parcel nor the two-month delay concerning the remainder of the City tract effected a taking.
- Summary judgment for the City was proper because no genuine issue of material fact existed and Byrd could not establish a regulatory taking.
Key quotations
“Consequently, there are only two elements to a regulatory inverse condemnation: affirmative conduct and a taking.” (657)
“In the context of regulatory delay, the Penn Central inquiry is whether the delay ever became unreasonable.” (660)
“The length of the delay alone is not determinative.” (660-661)
“Byrd cannot demonstrate that the City inversely condemned his property through regulatory delay.” (663)
Factual background
Byrd owned property partly within Hartsville and partly in Darlington County, formerly part of Coker Farms, a National Historic Landmark. He sought to rezone a small parcel and later the remainder of the City tract from agricultural to commercial use so he could sell the property for development. Hartsville delayed the first rezoning petition for eleven months while investigating whether development would jeopardize the landmark designation, then delayed the second petition for two months; Byrd continued to farm the property during the delays. The City ultimately approved both rezoning requests, but the initial purchaser lost financing before closing.
Procedural history
Byrd sued the City for regulatory inverse condemnation based on delays in acting on zoning petitions and also asserted a civil-conspiracy claim concerning tax-record flags placed on Coker Farms property. The circuit court granted the City summary judgment on both claims. Byrd did not appeal the conspiracy ruling, and the Supreme Court considered only the inverse-condemnation claim, affirming summary judgment for the City.