(A) The following guidelines shall be considered by the county when taking any action that might result in the physical or regulatory taking of private real property. The county should review the following to determine and identify whether a proposed governmental action raises constitutional taking issues. It is the policy of the county that no individual bear burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the community as a whole.
(B) A “Yes” answer to any of the following questions could raise the implication of a taking or damaging of private property for which compensation may be required:
(1) Does the action result in a permanent or inevitably recurring physical occupation of private property?
(2) Does the action require a property owner to dedicate property or grant an easement to the county without the payment of just compensation?
(3) Does the action create or otherwise impose a permanent ongoing nuisance, originating on county property, that impacts neighboring lands so that their owners or occupants sustain a special and unreasonable interference with the quiet enjoyment of the property?
(4) Does the action interfere with a fundamental attribute of ownership such as the right to reasonable access, the right to light, air and view within the right-of-way of an abutting public street or the right to exclude others from private property?
(5) Does the action unreasonably interfere with a separately protected and vested right, such as the right to continue a nonconforming use; the right to have an application reviewed under the law that was in effect when a complete application was submitted; legally issued subdivision play approvals, building permits or licenses; or other protected property interests?
(6) Does the action impose a severe economic burden that is inappropriately unfair when considered in light of: the burden placed on the property owner; the nature of the government action and benefit; and the property owner’s investment-backed expectations?
(7) Does the action deprive the property owner of all economically viable use of the property in a situation where the proposed use does not constitute a nuisance or a severe threat to health and safety?
(8) Does the action limit the use of private property without substantially advancing a legitimate public interest?
(9) Has the county failed to demonstrate by an individualized determination that any conditions, dedications, exactions imposed as a condition of approval of development applications place only fair and roughly proportionate burdens on development, offsetting the burdens that the proposed development places on public utilities, streets and other services but not imposing additional burdens on development that the community as a whole should bear?
(10) Does the action discriminate against property owners, imposing restrictions or burdens on one property owner that other similarly situated property owners do not bear?
(Ord. 2004-02, passed 6-28-2004)