Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

October 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 20 Zoning Bulletin DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of Alaska held that the Ordinance's three-dog limit was constitutional. The court explained that a zoning ordinance that infringes on property rights is valid so long as it bears a <cfair and substantial" relationship to a "legitimate government purpose." Here, the city had legitimate interests in controlling: dog noise, dog odor and pollution; dog-caused disease, and loose dogs. The court found that the Ordinance's three-dog limit "bore a 'fair and sub- stantial relationship' to those purposes." The relationship was "sub- stantial" because: "having fewer dogs effectively and directly limited noise, odor, pollution, health risks, and potential for escaped dogs." The relationship was "fair" because: "it was reasonable to think that more dogs may cause more nuisances, and the ordinance simply im- posed an additional requirement (obtaining a use permit) on resi- dents who wished to have more than three dogs." Additional require- ment of having to obtain a use permit merely "shift[ed] the burden to. the dog owner to prove that additional dogs would not annoy or threaten the health or safety of the community.'\ See also: Barber v. Municipality of Anchorage, 776 P.2d 1035 (Alas- ka 1989). Case Note: The court further noted that even if the Ordinance's three-dog limit was "numerically arbitrary," that did not mean that the Ordinance itself was "constitutionally arbitrary." Just as with speed limits, there was a "necessity of selecting some num- ber arbitrarily ...." Case Note: The Alaska standard that the relationship of the or- dinance to the government purpose be "fair and substantial" is "more protective than the federal standard," which requires that the relationship merely be "rational." 10 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 26 (~) /~'1 ( ) ~' ..:i H J.' ~-_: I .I I I