Laserfiche WebLink
2.' The denial of the petition would constitute an unconstitutional "taking7 of the <br /> petitioner's property. The 5t~ Amendment of' the U.S. Constitution states that private property <br /> shall not be "taken for public use without just compensation." Its purpose is to "bar Government <br /> fi-om forcing some people alone to bear burdens which in all fairness and justice should be borne <br /> by the public as a whole." Armstrong v. U.S., 364 U.S. 40, 48 (1960). The "takings clause" has <br /> been interpreted by courts not merely to apply to actual taking of property, but also to regulations <br /> which deny use of private property for purposes of advancing a public interest in an <br /> unreasonable way. Thus, "if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking.'..(and) a <br /> strong public desire to improve the public condition is not enough to warrant achieving (that) <br /> desire by a shorter cut than the constitutional way of paying for the change." Pennsylvania Coal <br /> Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 412-415 (1922). <br /> <br /> The "due process" clause of the 14t~ Amendment applies that principle to North Carolina <br />and its subdivisions, and our Supreme Court has established a test of"reasonableness" in judging <br />a challenge to a local ordinance on that basis. In A.S.P. Associates v. City of RaleigN 298 N.C. <br />207 (1979), Wake County's imposition of an "overlay historic districe' ordinance (pursuant to <br />specific authority by the General Assembly) was approved, but only because it was reasonable in <br />its application, and did not "prohibit" the owner from developing its land (unlike the current <br />ordinance). <br /> <br /> 3. The petitioner has a "vested right" to proceed with this phase of its development, <br /> <br />by reason of its actions in reliance upon the prior decision of this Board. In 1990 this Board (and <br />the Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners) approved the Planned Unit Development <br />("PUD") of the petitioner's approximately 1,800 acre, two-county phased development of what <br />is now called "Highland Creek." That plan contained 6,140 homesites of which almost 5,000 are <br /> <br /> <br />