Opinion ID: 1541319
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Constitutional Taking Claim

Text: [¶ 16] Shadan contends that the Town has placed such a serious impediment on the use and enjoyment of his land as to constitute a taking in violation of his constitutional rights. We disagree. We have previously noted in the zoning variance context that `the issue is whether strict compliance with the terms of the Ordinance would result in the practical loss of substantial beneficial use of the land.' Leadbetter v. Ferris, 485 A.2d 225, 227-28 (Me.1984). This principle is equally applicable in the case of a subdivision variance request. Your Home, Inc. v. Town of Windham, 528 A.2d 468, 471 (Me.1987). We have never determined that a property owner is immune from reasonable restrictions on enjoyment of land. See id. (Your Home is not entitled to a maximum return on its investment in the property; rather, it is entitled to some reasonable use.) Shadan still has enjoyment of his land on a seasonal basis. The Town has not unlawfully taken Shadan's property. No taking exists unless the property has been rendered substantially useless. Sibley v. Inhabitants of the Town of Wells, 462 A.2d 27, 31 (Me.1983). The entry is: Judgment affirmed.