Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(J <br /> <br />(j <br /> <br />(J <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />October 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No: 20 <br /> <br />Case Note: The city had also suggested that book and -vjdeo <br />stores had the adverse secondary effects of: (1)' exposing their <br />customers to theft; and (2) pornographic litter. The court found <br />that the city had failed to supply evidence supporting the theft <br />assertion. An antilitter rationale could, said. the court, only sup- <br />. port regulations like the Ordinance if the municipality could <br />show the regulation moved litter to where children would not <br />see it. For the antilitter justification to work, a municipality <br />would have to establish: "(a) how much sex-oriented litter an <br />adult bookstore generates; (b) who is likely to see that litter in <br />the parts of [the city] where adult bookstores are allowed to op- <br />erate; and (c) how much adult litter will remain in [that area of <br />the city] if [the adult bookstore] is exiled to an industrial district <br />or highway." <br /> <br />Validity of Zoning Regulations--.-Ordinance <br />places three-dog limit on property owners who <br />do not have a use permit <br /> <br />Property owner challenges ordinance as unconstitutionally <br />infringing on her property rights <br /> <br />J <br />Citation: Luper v. City of Wasil/a, 2009 WL 2902504 (Alaska 2009) <br /> <br />ALASKA (09/11/09)-Deborah Luper owned a one-acre parcd <br />(the "Property") in. a "Rural Residential" zop.e of the city. On her <br />Property, she operated a "hobby kennel" of 18 Shetland sheepdogs <br />over four months of age. <br />The city's zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance") required a prop~ <br />erty owner to obtain a use permit before operating a dog "kennel" <br />in a Rural Residential zone. "Kennel" was defined as "a use or lot in <br />which more than three dogs, over four months of age, are kept. " <br />Luper did not have a use permit for her kennel. After the city <br />brought an enforcement action against her, she applied to the city for <br />a use permit. The city denied her permit application. <br />Luper appealed the denial to superior court. Among other <br />. things, she argued that the Ordinance's three-dog limit was uncon- <br />stitutional because it "infringed on her property rights in both her <br />land and her dogs." <br />The superior court affirmed the city's denial of Luper's use permit <br />application. <br />Luper appealed.. <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />25 <br />