San Jose couple suing TRPA over lot in Angora Fire area

Submitted by paula on Fri, 12/11/2015 - 1:51pm

A couple from San Jose, Calif. has filed a lawsuit against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) over a lot they purchased in the Angora Fire area they have been denied building permits on.

Ray and Teresa Burns purchased a piece of property at 889 Lake Tahoe Blvd. The house that had once been located there burned in the 2007 Angora Fire and the Burns bought the lot when it went into foreclosure in 2009.

According to the San Jose Mercury News, the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Sacramento on Thursday, December 10 by the firm they hired, Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF).

"The government is violating protections against improper taking of property by denying them permits to build the South Lake Tahoe home," according to the Burns' allegations in the lawsuit.

The Burns say they are being denied a permit because the lot is in a sensitive environment zone (SEZ).

“It’s important to understand that people who lost homes to the 2007 Angora Fire, even if the home was on sensitive land, have a right to rebuild," said Tom Lotshaw of TRPA. "Many homeowners have done that in the years since the fire. This property owner is not the original home owner or land owner impacted by the Angora Fire. That said, we just received word of this lawsuit today and are investigating it. Preliminarily, it appears that there are many options that could be pursued with this property owner to work through the issue. So in that regard, it’s disappointing to see this in court instead of us working together for a solution.”

In a video put out by the PLF, the Burns state they wanted to build the home for their aging parents since it would have easy access, close to a fire station and hospital.

“TRPA’s actions are not only unfair, they’re unconstitutional,” said PLF Principal Attorney John Groen in the video. “The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that when government regulates property to such an extent that it denies all economically viable use, that is a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”