Opinion ID: 1245622
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Eleven-Month Delay

Text: As mentioned above, for eleven months the City delayed action on the petition to zone the Small Parcel for commercial use. Byrd has presented no evidence that this delay effected a taking of the City Tract. Preserving the NHL designation was a legitimate governmental interest, [14] and delaying the zoning decision was a reasonable means of furthering that interest. Commercial development might have caused the National Park Service to remove the designation. [15] Further, there is no evidence that the City's interest ever became disproportionate to the economic impacts on Byrd. [16] First, the delay did not affect the use to which Byrd was putting the City Tract before the rezoning petition was filed. The land was zoned for agricultural use, and Byrd's ability to farm the land was never disturbed. See Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 136, 98 S.Ct. at 2665, 57 L.Ed.2d at 656 (calling the existing use of the property the owner's primary expectation). Second, Byrd's only investment-backed expectation concerned the sale of the Small Parcel. The delay's interference with this expectation arguably impacted the value of the entire City Tract, but even with the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to Byrd, any such impact was too slight to render the delay unreasonable. In sum, there is no issue of material fact regarding the legitimacy of the City's conduct or the slight nature of the economic impact on Byrd. Byrd therefore cannot demonstrate that the delay ever became unreasonable, which means that he cannot demonstrate a taking.