we have explained that “[t]he proper procedure for analyzing taking questions is to determine the value of the property at the time of the governmental restriction and compare that with its value afterwards, to determine whether the diminution, if any, is so substantial as to strip the property of all practical value.” Seven Islands Land Co. v. Maine Land Use Regulation Comm’n, 450 A.2d 475, 482 (Me.1982). A property owner fails to prove a categorical federal or state takings claim if he or she fails to show that the governmental action has “rendered the property substantially useless and stripped it of all practical value.” Wyer v. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 2000 ME 45, ¶1, 747 A.2d 192; Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1015, 112 S.Ct. 2886, 120 L.Ed.2d 798 (1992) (<HOLDING>). The Town maintains that the ordinance did not
holding that a regulation prohibiting a landowner from building houses on his beachfront property denied him all economically viable use of his land and therefore was a taking requiring compensation holding that permit denial constituted a categorical taking recognizing categorical taking when regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land holding that a zoning regulation which deprives property of all economically beneficial or productive use is a categorical regulatory taking holding that zoning ordinance can effect a regulatory taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests or denies an owner all economically viable use of his land