Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

505 U.s. 1009 LUCAS v. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL Cite lIS 112 S.Ct. 2886 (1992) 2889 In the late 1970's; Lucas and others began extensive residential development of the Isle of Palms, a barrier island situated eastward of the city of Charleston. Toward the close of the development cycle for one residential subdivision known as "Beachwood East,"Lu- cas in 1986 purchased the two lots at"issuEdn this litigation for his own account. No por- tion of the lots, which were located approxi- mately 300 feet from the beach, qualified as a "critical area" under the 1977 Act; accord- ingly, at the time Lucas acquired these par- cels, he was not legally obliged to obtain a permit from the Council in advance of any development activity. His intention with re- spect to the lots was to do what the owners of the immediately adjacent parcels had al- ready done: erect single-family residences. He commissioned architectural drawings for this purpose. The Beachfront Management Act brought South Carolina's expressed interest in in- Lucas's plans to an abrupt end. Under that tensively managing development activities in 1988 legislation, the Council was directed to the so-called "coastal zone" dates from 1977 establish a ''baseline'' connecting the land- when, in the aftermath of Congress's passage ward-mosi "point[s] of erosion .. . during the of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act past forty years" in the region of the Isle of of 1972,86 Stat. 1280, as amended, 16 U.S.C. Palms that includes Lucas's lots. S.C.Code ~ 1451 et seq., the legislature enacted a Ann. ~ ~9-28O(A)(2) (Supp.I988).l In ac- Coastal Zone Management Act of its own. tion not challenged here, the Council fixed See S.C. Code Ann. ~ 4S-39-10 et seq. (1987). this baseline landward of Lucas's parcels. In its original form, the South Carolina Act That was significant, for under the Act required owners of coastal zone land that ..,Wooconstruction of occupiable improvements 2 qualified as a "critical area" (defined in the was flatly prohibited seaward of a line drawn C.C. Harness, III, Charleston, S.C., for respondent. ...J..19ooJustice SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. In 1986, petitioner David H. Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston CountY.:.l.!..oorSouth C3r~ olina,on which he intended to build single- family homes. In 1988, however, the South Carolina Legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act, S.C. Code Ann. ~ ~9- 250 et seq. (Supp.I990), which had the direct effect of barring petitioner from erecting any permanent habitable structures on his two parcels. See ~ ~9-29O(A). " A state trial court found that this prolubition rendered Lucas's parcels "valueless," App. to Pet. for Cert. 37. This case requires us" to decide whether the Act's" dramatic effect on the economic value of Lucas's lots accomplished a taking of private property under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments requiring the payment of "just compensation." U.S. Const., Amdt. 5. I A I. This specialized historical method of determin- ingthe baseline applied because the Beachwood East subdivision is located adjacent to a so-called "inlet erosion zone" (defined in the Act to mean "a segment of shoreline along or adjacent to tidal inlets which are directly influenced by the inlet and its associated shoals," S.C. Code Ann. ~ 48- 39-270(7) (Supp.1988)) that is "not stabilized by jetties, terminal groins, or other structures," ~ 48-39-280(A)(2). For areas other than these legislation to include beaches and immediate- ly adjacent sand dunes.JJ90s~ 48-39-10(J)) to obtain a permit from the newly created South Carolina Coastal Council (Council) (re- spondent here) prior to committing the land to a "use other than the use the critical area was devoted to on [September 28, 1977]." ~ 48-39-130(A). unstabilized inlet erosion zones, the statute di- rects that the baseline be established along "the " crest of an ideal primary oceanfront sand dune." ~ 48-39-280(A)(l). 2. The Act did allow thc construction of certain nonhabitable improvements, e.g., "wooden walk- ways no larger in width than six feet," and "small wooden decks no larger than one hun-