835 Hinesburg Road, LLC v. City of South Burlington

The district court held that the land-use development regulations did not constitute a physical taking where the regulation may restrict the property owner's planned development. The district court further found that it was unclear how the regulation would apply to the plaintiff's property, as the property owner had yet to file a complete development plan for city regulatory review; a final decision by a zoning agency is required for a decision on a constitutional takings claim.

A City of South Burlington property owner filed a lawsuit in federal court in Vermont asserting that the designation of its land as a “Habitat Block” constituted an illegal taking under the U.S. and Vermont Constitutions and violated the plaintiff’s equal protection and due process rights, the Vermont Constitution’s Common Benefit Clause, and Vermont statutes. The plaintiff alleged that the City’s amendments of its Land Development Regulations to prohibit development of and other actions in Habitat Blocks would have negative environmental consequences, including increases in greenhouse gas emissions due to increased distances that employees would have to travel to the center of Chittenden County because housing would not be available closer to their places of employment. The plaintiff contended that the “Habitat Blocks” did not promote the public good but instead decreased it.