James Fischer wrote:

 >> Loss of income is not "taking". The land has to be made worthless
 >> or nearly so and unsellable.
 >
 > It is not surprising that someone that sits on a zoning board would
 > imagine such narrow Constitutional limits on a zoning board.  :)
 >
 > Judges clearly disagree.  The mere number of cases litigated prove
 > that the courts have jurisdiction over a wide range of "lesser
 > takings".
snip
 > If the use at issue is restricted due to what is, in effect, a
 > land-use change (for example, an "agricultural" area that becomes
 > "residential" or the case in Aurora, CO, where a new restriction is
 > being created from whole cloth), the traditional approach is to
 > "grandfather" existing uses to avoid being overturned by the courts.

I follow the local and State and Federal laws. I cannot make
Constitutional decisions. We have a good case study book that I insure
all the ZBA members get, which is our guidance in tough cases. Almost
all are variances.
Grandfathering is the normal method of handling zoning changes,
but they only deal with existing uses on the land. Plus they then fall
under additional laws. The use does not necessarily always continue with
the land, so it can die with the owner or with a prolonged non-use. If
you are not doing it at the time of the change, even if it had been done
before on the land, you will not be grandfathered.

 >> It is a very difficult thing to prove.
 >
 > While proof is problematic in many "development", "land-speculator"
 > or "wetland" cases, the situation where a specific existing activity
 > like beekeeping might be banned is much more clear-cut.  There is no
 > "speculative" aspect to the restricted land use.  The impact would be
 > very direct, the use would be a "traditional use" and the damages
 > could be documented with ease.
 >

The problem here is just what I said above about the use has to be in
effect at the time of any change to the code. You might be able to start
beekeeping after the change, but could be challenged, depending on the law.

 >> But the key is not convincing a Board, it is keeping the law off
 >> the books in the first place.
 >
 >
 > Agreed, but it is hard to stop a local official from being
 > "responsive" to "citizen complaints", no matter how silly. If I was
 > dealing with your zoning board or town council, I'd come to the first
 > meeting with an injunction (easy to get when one can use terms like
 > "livelihood", "traditional use", and "right to farm"), and make a
 > very short statement before anyone even started to consider the
 > issue.
 >
 > The statement would be "Game over, dude."  :)

I actually look forward to the hard ones. If you are in the area with
your injunction, we meet the first and third Mondays. :)

  Getting a bit esoteric and away from beekeeping. If you get back to
the original problem, it is a problem of law and a change to the law,
which is where most all problems in zoning originate. Best course there
is keep the law for going into effect in the first place, with which we
both agree.

We could go on with this forever, but I will give you the last shot.

Bill Truesdell
Bath, Maine USA

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
-- Visit www.honeybeeworld.com/BEE-L for rules, FAQ and  other info ---
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::