April v. City of Broken Arrow
1989 WL 42654, 775 P.2d 1347 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipal land-use regulation constitutes a regulatory taking requiring just compensation only when it fails to substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies a landowner all economically viable use of their land; however, a claim for such a taking is not ripe for judicial review until the landowner has exhausted all available administrative remedies, including applying for permits or variances, and has received a final, definitive administrative decision on the permissible uses of the property.
Facts:
- Paul April, M.D., purchased 40 acres of undeveloped agricultural land in the City of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, for investment purposes.
- April's property is located within an existing 100-year flood plain of Haikey Creek and its tributaries, and is naturally subject to flooding following periods of heavy rainfall.
- In 1975, April successfully requested and was granted R-2 residential single-family zoning for his property, allowing three family dwellings per acre, after being informed that house pads would need to be built at least one foot above the 100-year flood elevation.
- In October 1977 and January 1978, April sought to rezone his property to higher density residential categories (R-4 duplex and R-5 apartments), but these requests were denied by the City's planning commission and staff.
- On March 20, 1978, the City Council enacted "The Flood Damage Protection Ordinance, No. 735," which regulated development within flood plains, and "The Earth Change Resolution Ordinance No. 736," controlling excavations and earth modifications throughout the municipality.
- April never submitted a development plan or subdivision plat, nor did he apply for a building permit, an earth change permit, or a hardship variance under the newly enacted land-use ordinances.
Procedural Posture:
- Paul April, M.D., initiated an inverse condemnation suit against the City of Broken Arrow in state trial court in December 1978, alleging the City's adoption of land-use ordinances constituted a permanent 'taking' of his property.
- April later dismissed three other causes of action, proceeding solely on the inverse condemnation claim.
- The trial court empaneled a jury, which rendered a verdict in favor of April and against the City for $240,000.00.
- The trial court subsequently awarded attorney fees, appraisers fees, city engineering-planning fees, and trial costs against the City, pursuant to statute.
- The City of Broken Arrow appealed the trial court's judgment to the Oklahoma Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the mere adoption of municipal land-use ordinances regulating development in a natural flood plain, without a final administrative decision denying a specific development plan, constitute a regulatory taking of private property requiring just compensation, or must a landowner first exhaust available administrative remedies?
Opinions:
Majority - Doolin, Justice
No, the mere adoption of municipal land-use ordinances regulating development in a natural flood plain does not constitute a regulatory taking of private property requiring just compensation where the landowner has not exhausted administrative remedies. The court reasoned that a valid enactment of a flood plain ordinance is not per se a taking, as acts within a municipality's proper police power that merely impair property use or value do not automatically trigger a taking claim. The City's land-use ordinances were legitimate exercises of its police power, substantially advancing public interests such as reducing risks to life and property, protecting public health, and preserving the environment, consistent with federal and state floodplain management laws. The court found no evidence that the City had appropriated April's land for public use as a detention pond, noting that the property naturally floods, and the City had not physically invaded the land or taken action to increase water flow. Furthermore, April's claim was premature because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. He never submitted a development plan, applied for building or earth change permits, or properly requested a hardship variance as provided by the ordinances. The court emphasized that a regulatory taking only occurs when a permit is denied, and the effect of that denial is to prevent all economically viable use of the land. Since April still had the R-2 zoning and had not sought a final administrative determination of what development was permissible, other economically viable uses for his property remained possible, and thus, no concrete controversy regarding the application of the ordinances had arisen. The court distinguished this case from Mattoon v. City of Norman, where there were allegations of a physical taking (city diverting surface water), which excused the exhaustion of administrative remedies.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the ripeness doctrine in the context of regulatory takings, requiring landowners to exhaust all available administrative remedies before pursuing judicial relief. It reinforces the principle that a mere diminution in property value due to legitimate land-use regulations does not automatically constitute a compensable taking. The ruling places a substantial burden on property owners to demonstrate that they have sought and been denied all economically viable uses for their land through the administrative process. This precedent will likely guide future cases by compelling landowners to engage fully with local zoning and permitting authorities before initiating costly and often premature inverse condemnation lawsuits, promoting administrative efficiency and preventing courts from premature entanglement in planning disputes.
