Policy Area” — a special zone created in the vicinity of String-fellow wherein additional layers of state and county-level clearances were established in order to ensure that proposed development did not jeopardize the Stringfellow cleanup efforts. The most significant restraints on the development of plaintiffs’ property were the groundwater contamination and the land-use designations. The plaintiffs have failed to show that the EPA’s activities pursuant to the access order had a sufficient adverse economic impact on the value of the subject property to constitute a regulatory taking. A regulation that does not decrease the value of regulated property does not give rise to a taking claim. Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 593-94, 82 S.Ct. 987, 989-90, 8 L.Ed.2d 130 (1962) (<HOLDING>). The EPA order was never invoked to bar any
holding that interpretation of regulation by va that conflicted with plain meaning of regulation not entitled to deference holding that pma process is not specific regulation because the requirements are not contained in formal regulation holding that a regulation prohibiting excavations below groundwater level was not a taking because the regulation only limited some forms of development but did not decrease market value holding that the challenge to a university regulation was moot because the regulation had been substantially amended holding that where a regulation could not fairly be read to have spoken at all on an issue an agencys proposed interpretation of the regulation as it pertained to that issue was not a reasonable interpretation of the regulation