Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Page 4 January 25, 1998 Z.B. .7 The court relied on the standards for determining the constitutionality of zoning ordinances. The city appealed, arguing the trial court improperly applied the wrong legal standard. According to the city, the ordinance was constitutional if exam- ined under the legal standard that applied to the constitutionality of criminal not zoning m ordinances. Because ownership of a pot-bellied pig wasn't a fundamental right, the city's ordinance would be a valid exercise of its police powers under criminal standards if it was substantially related to the public health, safety, or welfare. DECISION: Reversed. By holding that the ordinance was unconstitutional, the trial court improperly substituted its own judgment for that of the city. It also improperly considered the constitutionality of the ordinance under the standard for zoning, not criminal, ordinances. Under the proper standard, if the ordinance served a legitimate public purpose and used means that were reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose without unduly oppressing the individuals regulated, the ordinance didn't violate due process. The ordinance obviously served a legitimate purpose because it regulated and controlled some of the more unpleasant aspects of living with or near swine. The evidence showed pot-bellied pigs generated four times as much m and fouler smelling m waste as other household pets. The impact of these organic statistics was shown by the neighbor's testimony. It was reasonable to limit the pigs to one-acre lots, because there were a f'mite number of such lots in residential areas. This limited the number of surrounding properties that could be impacted by the pigs. see also: City of Atlanta v. Watson, 475 &E. 2d 896 (1996). Application -- Developer sues to force county's decision on subdivision application Aspen Group Inc. v. Washington County Board of Commissioners, 946 P. 2d 347 (Oregon) 1997 The Aspen Group Inc. sought approval of a preliminary subdivision plan from the Washington County (Ore.) Board of Commissioners. The board's planning staff wrote about seven pages of conditions the developer had to fulfill before getting the board's approval. It did not, however, reach a final decision. A state statute required the county to take final action on a permit application within 120 days of the application's submission. If the county did not take action, a court could order it to approve the application -- provided it didn't violate a comprehensive plan or any land use regulations. After 120 days passed without a decision, the developer sued the county. The county chose not to defend itself in the lawsuit, so Crist, a private citizen who opposed the subdivision, took its place. The court incorporated the board's conditions and imposed three of its own,