|
2296 Although an undue restriction on the use of private property is a taking, for which just compensation is required, to establish the ripeness of an action for inverse condemnation, the claimant has the heavy burden of setting forth facts showing that the land use regulation agency drew a clear and emphatic line regarding the sole use to which the property may ever be put, and this may require re-submission of plans reflecting changes designed to satisfy concerns expressed by the agency in rejecting the initial application.CitationTOIGO v TOWN OF ROSS (Re-submission) 70 CA4 309 [See: Candlestick v SF Bay Conservation 11 CA3 557; Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning 520 US 725; Milagra Ridge v City of Pacifica 62 CA4 108, T/AT 4/98]
|
|
