Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Z.B. September 10, 1998 -- Page 3 of ordinary intelligence with notice of what conduct was prohibited, and-pro- vided standards for those who enforced those prohibitions. Persons of ordinary intelligence wouldn't be confused as to the coverage of the statute's theater excep- tion, or by the meaning of "simulated sex act." Although there may be issues of interpretation, it didn't mean the amendment was unconstitutionally vague. "It will always be true that the fertile legal 'imagination can conjure up hypotheti- cal cases in which the meaning of [disputed] terms will be in nice question.'" see also: Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc., 501 U.S. 560, l15 L.Ed.2d 504, 111 S. Ct. 2456 (1991). Zoning Violation -- Town cites owner for selling bison meat in agricultural district Citation: Town of .Iackson v. 0 'Hearn, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. Two, No. 98-023 7 (1998) O'Hearn owned property in the town of Jackson, Wis. It was zoned agri- cultural/rural residential. He applied for a permit to build a pole barn to store hay for his bison, and got another permit t6 build facilities for clean storage. Instead of using the barn for storage, O'Hearn installed a counter, countertop, and a showcase freezer. He then opened a retail store that sold bison meat. The town investigated after residents complained about O'Hearn's prop- erty. After determining its zoning ordinance didn't allow the retail sale of meat in the agricultural district, the town gave O'Hearn a grace period to apply for a conditional use permit. O'Hearn neither applied for the permit nor shut down the store, and the town cited him for zoning violations. Over the next few months, the town issued O'Hearn several additional citations. When the town investigated O'Hearn's property, it also-investigated other properties in the district and discovered zoning violations. The town gave the other owners the same grace period it gave O'Hearn, and the other violators either stopped their illegal activities or applied for a conditional use permit.. The town didn't cite anybody except O'Hearn. The town sought to prosecute O'Hearn for violating the zoning ordinance. O'Hearn claimed the zoning ordinance allowed him to sell farm products. One of the listed uses in the district was the "[k]eeping and raising of domestic stock for agribusiness, breeding, recreation or show." The ordinance didn't define "agribusiness," but O'Hearn said it was the same as farming, which was defined by another statute as "distributing directly to consumers or marketing ... commodities" grown on the property. The court convicted O'Hearn of zoning violations, and he appealed. He claimed the town violated his equal protection rights by enforcing the ordinance against him while ignoring other violators. DECISION: Affirmed. O'Hearn was properly convicted. He violated the town's zoning ordinance by selling bison meat from his barn.