The Supreme Court has distinguished between two branches of Takings Clause cases: physical takings and regulatory takings. See Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 152 L. Ed. 2d 517, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 1479 (2002) (distinguishing 'between acquisitions of property for public uses . . . and regulations prohibiting private uses') [hereinafter Tahoe-Sierra]; see also Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519, 522, 118 L. Ed. 2d 153, 112 S. Ct. 1522 (1992) (delineating between claims of physical occupation and mere regulation). A physical taking occurs either when there is a condemnation or a physical appropriation of property. Tahoe-Sierra, 122 S. Ct. at 1478. Generally, courts apply 'straightforward' per se rules when addressing physical takings. Id. A regulatory taking transpires when some significant restriction is placed upon an owner's use of his property for which 'justice and fairness' require that compensation be given. Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590, 594, 8 L. Ed. 2d 130, 82 S. Ct. 987 (1962); accord Penn. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 415, 67 L. Ed. 322, 43 S. Ct. 158 (1922) ('The general rule at least is that while ...