Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

(/~) March 25, 20081 Volume 21 No.6 '/-'j ( . in the lawn care business. Those employees parked their personal ve- hicles at the Bogers' residence each work day. The city brought an action against the Bogers to prohibit them from conducting the businesses out of their home property. The city alleged the businesses did not qualify as permissible "home occupa- tions" under the city zoning ordinance. The ordinance prohibited, among other things, a home occupation that resulted in: commercial exterior storage areas and parking areas; and generation of vehicular traffic or parking that was substantially greater or in different char- acter than that ordinarily associated with a residential dwelling. The Bogers counterclaimed, alleging the city's attempt to enforce the zoning ordinance was an unconstitutional taking of property through inverse condemnation. The Bogers' claim was that the city's zoning ordinance so greatly prohibited their use of their property that it was the equivalent of condemnation of the entire property. The district court granted the city's requested injunction. The in- junction prohibited the Bogers from storing or parking heavy equip- ment on their property and using the property as a place for employ- ees to "mobilize" for work by leaving their vehicles on the property for the work day. The court dismissed the Bogers' counterclaim, finding there was no taking of their property through enforcement of the zoning ordinance. The Bogers appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The court concluded that the Bogers did not have a permissible "home occupation" under the zoning ordinance. The ordinance's plain language prohibited home occupations with commercial exteri- or storage and parking areas, as well as substantially greater vehicu- lar traffic than that associated with residential dwellings. The Bogers stored heavy equipment on their property. Employees of the Bogers' lawn care business parked their vehicles on or near the premises dur- ing the work day. These vehicles and machinery were substantially greater or substantially different in character than that ordinarily as- sociated with a residential dwelling, the court found. The court also said that any due process argument would fail because the ordinance gave adequate warning of the prohibited conduct. The court also concluded that the city's enforcement of the ordi- nance was ~ot an unconstitutional taking of the Bogers' property without just compensation. The zoning ordinance advanced a legiti- mate and substantial government interest of maintaining aesthetics, the court said. The Bogers had no legitimate expectations in using their premises for commercial purposes, as the ordinance was in 7 143