APPENDICES
Agency or local government staff must use the following questions in reviewing the potential impact of a regulatory or administrative action on specific property. While these questions also provide a framework for evaluating the impact proposed regulations may have generally, takings questions normally arise in the context of specific affected property. The public review process used for evaluating proposed regulations is another tool that the agency or local government should use aggressively to safeguard rights of private property owners. If property is subject to regulatory jurisdiction of multiple governmental agencies, each agency or local government should be sensitive to the cumulative impacts of the various regulatory restrictions.
Although a question may be answered affirmatively, it does not mean that there has been a "taking". Rather, it means there could be a constitutional issue and that the proposed action should be carefully reviewed with legal counsel.
For example, the United States Supreme Court determined in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987), that compelling an owner of waterfront property to grant a public easement across his property that does not substantially advance the public's interest in beach access, constitutes a "taking." Likewise, the United States Supreme Court held that compelling a property owner to leave a public greenway, as opposed to a private one, did not substantially advance protection of a flood plain, and was a "taking." Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 U.S. 2309 (1994).
Unlike 1 and 2 above, it is important to analyze the regulation's impact on the property as a whole, and not just the impact on a portion of the property. It is also important to assess whether there is any profitable use of the remaining property available. See Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The remaining use does not necessarily have to be the owner's planned use, a prior use or the highest and best use of the property. One factor in this assessment is the degree to which the regulatory action interferes with a property owner's reasonable investment-backed development expectations.
Carefully review regulations requiring that all of a particular parcel of land be left substantially in its natural state. A prohibition of all economically viable uses of the property is vulnerable to a takings challenge. In some situations, however, there may be pre-existing limitations on the use of property that could insulate the government from takings liability.
A moratorium as a planning tool may be used pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6523 – Emergency Ordinances and Moratoriums (written findings of imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare; may not be longer than 120 days); and Idaho Code § 67-6524 – Interim Ordinances and Moratoriums; (written findings of imminent peril to public health, safety or welfare; the ordinance must state a definite period of time for the moratorium). Absence of the written findings may prove fatal to a determination of the reasonableness of the government action.
The Idaho moratorium provisions appear to be consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of moratorium as a planning tool as well. In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al., (Slip Opinion No. 00-1167, April 23, 2002); the Court held that planning moratoriums may be effective land use planning tools. Generally, moratoriums in excess of one year should be viewed with skepticism, but should be considered a one factor in the determination of whether a taking has occurred. An essential element pursuant to Idaho law is the issuance of written findings in conjunction with the issuance of moratoriums. See Idaho Code §§ 67-6523-6524.
The United States Supreme Court recently held that requiring a public easement for recreational purposes where the harm to be prevented was to the flood plain was a 'taking. In finding this to be a "taking", the Court stated:
The city never demonstrated why a public greenway, as opposed to a private one, was required in the interest of flood control. The difference to the petitioner, of course, is the loss of her ability to exclude others ... [T]his right to exclude others is "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 U.S. 2309 (1994).
The United States Supreme Court has also held that barring the inheritance (an essential attribute of ownership) of certain interests in land held by individual members of an Indian tribe constituted a "taking." Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 107 S. Ct. 2079 (1987).
In Nollan, the United States Supreme Court held that it was an unconstitutional "taking" to condition the issuance of a permit to land owners on the grant of an easement to the public to use their beach. The Court found that since there was no indication that the Nolan’s' house plans interfered in any way with the public's ability to walk up and down the beach, there was no "nexus" between any public interest that might be harmed by the construction of the house, and the permit conditions. Lacking this connection, the required easement was just as unconstitutional as it would be if imposed outside the permit context.
Similarly, regulatory actions which closely resemble, or have the effects of a physical invasion or occupation of property, are more likely to be found to be takings. The greater the deprivation of use, the greater the likelihood that a "taking" will be found.
| type of development | type of development or area | basic buffer width (feet) | height adjustment | headlight buffer? | security fence required? |
| industrial | residential, platted residential lots | 50 | 1:1 | for parking | Yes |
| industrial | any public way | 12 | None | No | Yes |
| industrial or commercial | adjoining visually sensitive area | 50 | 1:1 | NO | No |
| commercial | residential, platted residential lots | 20 | .75:1 | for parking | No |
| commercial outdoor materials storage, handling, or sales areas, over 10,000 SF | residential, platted residential lots | 50 | None | Yes | Yes |
| commercial outdoor materials storage, handling, or sales areas, any size | any public way | 12 | None | No | Yes |
| higher density residential | lower density residential, platted residential lots | 20 | .80:1 | for parking | No |
| Land Use | Parking Spaces | Land Use | Parking spaces per 1000 feet of gross floor area |
| dwellings (SLUC 11, 14) | 2 per unit | retail automotive, marine (SLUC 55) | 5 |
| lodging places (SLUC 15) | 1 per unit plus 1 | eating and drinking places (SLUC 58) | 15 |
| theaters and similar places of assembly (including SLUC 72) | .33 per seat | financial, real estate, and insurance services (SLUC 61) | 3 |
| elementary and junior high schools | 1 per classroom plus 1, (auditoriums used for public events are places of assembly) | beauty and barber services (SLUC 623) | 6 |
| hospitals, rest homes, and similar uses (SLUC 6513, 6516) | 2 per bed | other personal services, misc. services (SLUC 62, 69) | 3 |
| land use | parking spaces per 1000 feet of gross floor area | health services, except hospitals (SLUC 51) | 5 |
| building materials, farm equipment, and furniture (SLUC 5211-5240, 5252, 57) | 1 | professional services (SLUC 65) | 3 |
| hardware, apparel, and misc. retail uses (SLUC 5251, 56, 59) | 3 | shopping centers | 4 |
| general merchandise, groceries, bakeries (SLUC 53, 54) | 4 | mixed office uses | 3 |
| slope | units served | minimum right-of-way width | minimum surface width | maximum cul-de-sac length |
| 0-8% | > 16 | 60 feet | 24 feet | 660 feet |
| 0-8% | < 16 | 60 feet | 24 feet, 16 feet one way | 880 feet |
| 8-15% | > 16 | 40 feet | 20 feet two-way, 16 feet one way | 660 feet |
| 8-15% | < 16 | 40 feet | 16 feet with pull-outs every 400 feet | 880 feet |
| > 15% | any number, construction discouraged | 40 feet | 14 feet, with pull-outs every 400 feet | 660 feet |

APPENDICES
Agency or local government staff must use the following questions in reviewing the potential impact of a regulatory or administrative action on specific property. While these questions also provide a framework for evaluating the impact proposed regulations may have generally, takings questions normally arise in the context of specific affected property. The public review process used for evaluating proposed regulations is another tool that the agency or local government should use aggressively to safeguard rights of private property owners. If property is subject to regulatory jurisdiction of multiple governmental agencies, each agency or local government should be sensitive to the cumulative impacts of the various regulatory restrictions.
Although a question may be answered affirmatively, it does not mean that there has been a "taking". Rather, it means there could be a constitutional issue and that the proposed action should be carefully reviewed with legal counsel.
For example, the United States Supreme Court determined in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141 (1987), that compelling an owner of waterfront property to grant a public easement across his property that does not substantially advance the public's interest in beach access, constitutes a "taking." Likewise, the United States Supreme Court held that compelling a property owner to leave a public greenway, as opposed to a private one, did not substantially advance protection of a flood plain, and was a "taking." Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 U.S. 2309 (1994).
Unlike 1 and 2 above, it is important to analyze the regulation's impact on the property as a whole, and not just the impact on a portion of the property. It is also important to assess whether there is any profitable use of the remaining property available. See Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States, 18 F.3d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The remaining use does not necessarily have to be the owner's planned use, a prior use or the highest and best use of the property. One factor in this assessment is the degree to which the regulatory action interferes with a property owner's reasonable investment-backed development expectations.
Carefully review regulations requiring that all of a particular parcel of land be left substantially in its natural state. A prohibition of all economically viable uses of the property is vulnerable to a takings challenge. In some situations, however, there may be pre-existing limitations on the use of property that could insulate the government from takings liability.
A moratorium as a planning tool may be used pursuant to Idaho Code § 67-6523 – Emergency Ordinances and Moratoriums (written findings of imminent peril to public health, safety, or welfare; may not be longer than 120 days); and Idaho Code § 67-6524 – Interim Ordinances and Moratoriums; (written findings of imminent peril to public health, safety or welfare; the ordinance must state a definite period of time for the moratorium). Absence of the written findings may prove fatal to a determination of the reasonableness of the government action.
The Idaho moratorium provisions appear to be consistent with the United States Supreme Court’s interpretation of moratorium as a planning tool as well. In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al., (Slip Opinion No. 00-1167, April 23, 2002); the Court held that planning moratoriums may be effective land use planning tools. Generally, moratoriums in excess of one year should be viewed with skepticism, but should be considered a one factor in the determination of whether a taking has occurred. An essential element pursuant to Idaho law is the issuance of written findings in conjunction with the issuance of moratoriums. See Idaho Code §§ 67-6523-6524.
The United States Supreme Court recently held that requiring a public easement for recreational purposes where the harm to be prevented was to the flood plain was a 'taking. In finding this to be a "taking", the Court stated:
The city never demonstrated why a public greenway, as opposed to a private one, was required in the interest of flood control. The difference to the petitioner, of course, is the loss of her ability to exclude others ... [T]his right to exclude others is "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 U.S. 2309 (1994).
The United States Supreme Court has also held that barring the inheritance (an essential attribute of ownership) of certain interests in land held by individual members of an Indian tribe constituted a "taking." Hodel v. Irving, 481 U.S. 704, 107 S. Ct. 2079 (1987).
In Nollan, the United States Supreme Court held that it was an unconstitutional "taking" to condition the issuance of a permit to land owners on the grant of an easement to the public to use their beach. The Court found that since there was no indication that the Nolan’s' house plans interfered in any way with the public's ability to walk up and down the beach, there was no "nexus" between any public interest that might be harmed by the construction of the house, and the permit conditions. Lacking this connection, the required easement was just as unconstitutional as it would be if imposed outside the permit context.
Similarly, regulatory actions which closely resemble, or have the effects of a physical invasion or occupation of property, are more likely to be found to be takings. The greater the deprivation of use, the greater the likelihood that a "taking" will be found.
| type of development | type of development or area | basic buffer width (feet) | height adjustment | headlight buffer? | security fence required? |
| industrial | residential, platted residential lots | 50 | 1:1 | for parking | Yes |
| industrial | any public way | 12 | None | No | Yes |
| industrial or commercial | adjoining visually sensitive area | 50 | 1:1 | NO | No |
| commercial | residential, platted residential lots | 20 | .75:1 | for parking | No |
| commercial outdoor materials storage, handling, or sales areas, over 10,000 SF | residential, platted residential lots | 50 | None | Yes | Yes |
| commercial outdoor materials storage, handling, or sales areas, any size | any public way | 12 | None | No | Yes |
| higher density residential | lower density residential, platted residential lots | 20 | .80:1 | for parking | No |
| Land Use | Parking Spaces | Land Use | Parking spaces per 1000 feet of gross floor area |
| dwellings (SLUC 11, 14) | 2 per unit | retail automotive, marine (SLUC 55) | 5 |
| lodging places (SLUC 15) | 1 per unit plus 1 | eating and drinking places (SLUC 58) | 15 |
| theaters and similar places of assembly (including SLUC 72) | .33 per seat | financial, real estate, and insurance services (SLUC 61) | 3 |
| elementary and junior high schools | 1 per classroom plus 1, (auditoriums used for public events are places of assembly) | beauty and barber services (SLUC 623) | 6 |
| hospitals, rest homes, and similar uses (SLUC 6513, 6516) | 2 per bed | other personal services, misc. services (SLUC 62, 69) | 3 |
| land use | parking spaces per 1000 feet of gross floor area | health services, except hospitals (SLUC 51) | 5 |
| building materials, farm equipment, and furniture (SLUC 5211-5240, 5252, 57) | 1 | professional services (SLUC 65) | 3 |
| hardware, apparel, and misc. retail uses (SLUC 5251, 56, 59) | 3 | shopping centers | 4 |
| general merchandise, groceries, bakeries (SLUC 53, 54) | 4 | mixed office uses | 3 |
| slope | units served | minimum right-of-way width | minimum surface width | maximum cul-de-sac length |
| 0-8% | > 16 | 60 feet | 24 feet | 660 feet |
| 0-8% | < 16 | 60 feet | 24 feet, 16 feet one way | 880 feet |
| 8-15% | > 16 | 40 feet | 20 feet two-way, 16 feet one way | 660 feet |
| 8-15% | < 16 | 40 feet | 16 feet with pull-outs every 400 feet | 880 feet |
| > 15% | any number, construction discouraged | 40 feet | 14 feet, with pull-outs every 400 feet | 660 feet |
