Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/06/1999

Home

Page 4 -- June t0, 1999 Z.B. for a permit, and the township denied its request after finding that housing wild animals might endanger the township's residents. The township relied on evi- dence that wild cats were dangerous, cats at the Center had escaped their cages and restraints or were allowed to run loose, and the security features at the Center might not be adequate. The Center sued the township. It asked the court to declare it was an "ani- mal training center," and therefore a permitted use. The. Center also claimed that even if its use wasn't permitted, the township arbitrarily and capriciously denied its request for a conditional use permit based "wholly on unsubstanti- ated and unverified safety fears" and "the truism that wildcats can injure some- one if they escape." The court denied the Center's requested declaration and affirmed the township's denial of a conditional use permit. According to the court, the term "Animals--Commercial Training" didn't include training centers for wild ani- mals such as exotic cats because the ordinance defined only two types of ani- mals, domestic farm animals and domestic pets. The Center appealed. DECISION: Reversed in part and returned to the trial court. The township properly denied the Center's request for a conditional use permit. However, the Center was entitled to a trial to determine whether it primarily trained, as opposed to boarded, exotic cats -- and was therefore a permitted use. The Center correctly argued that the township needed more than mere con- jecture or speculation to deny the Center a conditional use permit, but the town- ship had a rational basis for its decision. The township denied the permit be- cause the Center's property use to house wild animals "would not protect the health, safety or welfare" of the township's residents; evidence showed that wild cats were dangerous; some of the Center's cats had escaped their cages or were allowed to run loose; and the Center's security features might not be adequate. The trial court's interpretation of the ordinance to prohibit the training of nondomestic animals no doubt matched the zoning ordinance's intent to "pro- mote the public health, safety and general welfare," but the ordinance didn't contain any language restricting ~he Center's use. Although the ordinance did define domestic animals, it didn't define "animals" so as to exclude wild animals. The Center was entitled to a trial. Because it interpreted the ordinance to prohibit animal training centers for any nondomestic animals, the trial court never determined whether the Center was an animal training facility. Although the Center claimed it trained exotic cats, there was no conclusive evidence that training was anything more than a minimal part of the Center's operations. If training was only an accessory use, albeit a permitted acces- sory use, the Center might still violate the zoning ordinance because the primary use of the property determined its character for zoning purposes. If