Opinion ID: 1312367
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reasonable access

Text: The Parrishes argue that their remaining access is unreasonable, and therefore the superior court erred in not awarding damages for the diminution of value of the uncondemned portion of their property. [7] If the remaining access is reasonable, then the mere diminution of prior access does not amount to a taking or damage of a cognizable property interest such as would require compensation under the federal or state constitution. In Triangle, 632 P.2d at 969 n. 9, we reject[ed] Triangle's argument that because the change in accessibility to its property diminished the value of the property, the loss is necessarily compensable. Government activity in pursuit of social goals often has a detrimental effect upon the value of some real property. Unless this detriment rises to the level of a taking or damage within the meaning of art. I, § 18 of the Alaska Constitution, however, there is no right to compensation. The question whether the Parrishes' remaining access is reasonable is plainly a matter of degree. We cannot simply compare the number of lineal feet of accessible road frontage before and after the condemnation, as the Parrishes suggest in their brief. Nor can it be answered by simply comparing the properties' value before and after the condemnation, as the Parrishes also suggest. [8] Instead, it involves and ad hoc analysis of the roads that actually or potentially lead to the property after the condemnation, to determine if they are suitable for the traffic that would likely go to the property. We think the analysis necessarily involves an examination of the potential uses of the property. [9] The use of the property will influence the number, size, and type of vehicles requiring access. Access that is reasonable for a single-family dwelling may be entirely unreasonable for an industrial subdivision. Furthermore, even if a road to the property is capable of handling the expected traffic, that road may not provide reasonable access if a river or cliff cuts it off from a major usable part of the property. [10] In this case, the superior court erred by determining that the remaining access was reasonable without finding and taking into account the highest and best use of the property. Both parties agree that the highest and best use of the property prior to the condemnation was to subdivide it into small tracts for industrial use. Typical uses for such tracts include truck and trailer sales, warehousing, and equipment storage. The record indicates that the highest and best use remained unchanged after the condemnation. [11] The superior court determined that four access routes remain into and out of the Parrishes' properties; a 33-foot-wide easement running north and south along the western edge of the Parrishes' land, encumbering the adjacent property; [12] a 25-foot-wide easement of record running east and west along the southern border of the Parrish properties to Peger Road; and Truck Street and Trailer Street, which are 50-foot-wide gravel streets running north and south connecting Cartwright Road (now called Van Horn Road), an improved highway south of the Parrishes' properties, to the southern boundary of their properties. [13] See Appendix. We recognize that the Parrishes' remaining access, via Truck or Trailer Streets and Cartwright Road, is circuitous. However, we do not find this circuity alone unreasonable. While the loss of less circuitous potential access to Peger Road via the section line easement may have adversely affected the properties' market value, that alone does not make the loss compensable. See Triangle, 632 P.2d at 967. However, a problem with the remaining access is that the easement along the properties' southern border may fail to meet minimum street width requirements for subdivisions, as established by Fairbanks North Star Borough ordinances. Those ordinances at the relevant time required roads that access the various lots in a subdivision to be 50 feet in width. The easement of record along the southern border is 25 feet wide, encumbering the land to the south of the Parrish properties. The parties disagree about whether there is an additional easement encumbering the southern 25 feet of the Parrish property. If such an easement exists, the total width of the two easements would be 50 feet. In 1975, the Parrish Company subdivided its 80-acre tract into four 20-acre parcels by waiver of the applicable subdivision regulations. Attached to the Parrish Company's application for waiver was a diagram of the proposed subdivision which specifically showed that the easement along the southern boundary of the property was 50 feet wide, not 25, extending all the way to Peger Road. The State argues that the Parrishes' actions constituted a common law dedication of an additional 25 feet on their side of the southern boundary, all the way to Peger Road. We explained common law dedication in Swift v. Kniffen, 706 P.2d 296, 301 & n. 2 (Alaska 1985) (footnote and citation omitted; emphasis in original): There are two essential elements of a common law dedication: (1) an owner's offer of dedication to the public and (2) acceptance by the public. The crux of the offer requirement is that the owner must somehow objectively manifest his intent to set aside property for the public's use. These requirements are met in the instant case. The Parrishes objectively manifested an intent to dedicate the twenty-five foot strip in their 1975 application to the Borough for a waiver of the subdivision regulations. The letter requesting the waiver was based on an attached sketch, which clearly delineated a strip along the southern edge of the property. The strip was identified: 50' easement  25' each side of line... . Unlike the landowner in Swift, the Parrishes never made any effort to revoke this offer. Cf. Swift, 706 P.2d at 301 (owner engaged in `sufficient activities to negate any presumed intent to dedicate to the public.') Just three weeks later, the Borough granted the request on the basis of the Parrishes' letter, thereby accepting the offer of dedication which was an integral part of the Parrishes' request. Based on these facts, we agree with the State that the Parrishes' actions constituted a common law dedication to the public of a 25-footwide strip along the southern boundary of their property. [14] In summary, the superior court must determine whether the remaining access is reasonable for industrial subdivision of each of the subject parcels, given that the width of the southern easement is fifty feet. If the remaining access is unreasonable but if it could be remedied by the Parrishes dedicating some portion of their land to the public, then the State must compensate them for that portion of their land. If the remaining access is reasonable, the Parrishes are not entitled to compensation for the amount of land they would have to dedicate to achieve access comparable to what it was prior to the condemnation. In order to subdivide their properties, the Parrishes may now have to dedicate more land for rights-of-way than they would have in the absence of the condemnation. [15] However, we decline to adopt the Parrishes' suggestion that the State must compensate them for that increased burden. Our reasons are as follows. First, it is too speculative to have experts testify as to possible subdivision plans to determine how much more land the owner would have to dedicate after the condemnation than before, when the planning authority has not considered or approved any of those plans. Second, when a controlled-access highway is created, abutting landowners whose access is changed are forced to bear other types of reasonable expenses, including increased development costs. We see little difference between those other increased development costs and additional dedication of land. The fact that dedication is to the public does not sway us, when it is for the private economic gain of the landowner. To require compensation whenever a landowner's future development might require more dedication than in the absence of the condemnation would be to favor subdividers over other land users, since it is only subdividers that need to dedicate land to the public. We conclude the Parrishes are entitled to access that is reasonable but not necessarily comparable to what it might have been in the absence of the condemnation. So long as their access is reasonable, the potential burden of increased dedication is non-compensable. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. [16]