1.

Name, Citation and Parties (Defendant and Plaintiff)

Roberta Gove v ZBA of Chatham, 444 Mass. 754; 831 N.E.2d 865; 2005 Mass. LEXIS
423
Plaintiff: Gove
Defendant: ZBA of Chatham
2. One-line Procedural History
The Superior and Appeals Court of MA ruled that the Chatham construction prohibition
on lot 93 did not constitute a taking and was a legitimate use of police power, to which
Gove appealed and the case was taken to the Supreme Court of MA, where they ruled in
favor of the defendants, stating that the plaintiffs did not have sufficient evidence to
support their claim.
3. One-line Legal Issue
Does the prohibition of construction on lot 93 constitute a taking without just
compensation in accordance with the 5th and 14th Amendments?
4. Bullet List of Facts of Case
1. Gove inherited the undeveloped lot 93 from her family in 1975, before the prohibition
on construction existed.
2. In 1985, Chatham placed all land with the 100 flood plain, including lot 93, into a
conservancy district, and banned all new construction of residential building without
exception.
3. Lot 93 lies entirely within the flood hazard zone and would be susceptible to coastal
flooding.
4. Before the ban, Gove tried to sell her land, but could not, claiming that the breach
made her property valueless.
5. In 1998, the Greniers purchased the property and applied for a permit to build a
house. This permit was denied by the zoning board
6. Gove and the Greniers filed suit against the board of selectmen and another against
the conservation commission.
7. The Superior Court ruled in favor of the defendants, on the grounds that the plaintiff
had insufficient evidence to support the takings claim.
5. Arguments
Plaintiffs: the ban was a taking of lot 93, and requires just compensation. The ban was
also not a legitimate use of police power. The town had deprived her of any economically
beneficial use of lot 93.
Defendants: The ban and the establishment of the conservancy district was a legitimate
use of police power, for they were enacted to protect the public safety of residents and
personnel against coastal flooding.

6. Decision (Holding)
No. The Court ruled that the plaintiffs did not require compensation and this was not a
total regulatory taking by Chatham. The Court found that Gove failed to prove that the
ban effected a physical occupation of her property, the ban left her property economically
valueless, or that the ban and the conservancy districts establishment did not have a
reasonable relationship with the use police power.
7. Legal Precedence
In order for a property owner to argue total regulatory taking, they needs to demonstrate a
reasonable investment-backed expectation of their property.
8. Jot down any notable quotes
Goves failure to show any substantial personal financial investment in lot 93
emphasizes her inability to demonstrate that she ever had any reasonable expectation of
selling that particular lot for residential development, or that she has suffered any
substantial loss as a result of the regulations.