Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/1997

Home

Page 8 -- January 15, 1997 Z.B. showed he would suffer harm if the court did not issue the order, that issuing the special use permit would not substantially harm others, and that the order would serve the public interest. see also: FW/?BS Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 225, 110 S. Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed. 2d 603 (1990). see also: United States v. 0 'Brien, 392 U.S. 367, 88 S. Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed. 2d 672 (1968). Density- Building owner attacks limit on number of adults who may live together Citation: City of Brookings v. Winker, 554 N. W. 2d 827 (South Dakota) 1996 The city of Brookings, S.D., was a college town. Its zoning ordinance defined "family" in a way that limited to three the number of unrelated adults who could live together. The city adopted the definition to limit population density. The state zoning enabling law specifically authorized municipalities to regulate population density. Winker, who owned a rental building in a two-family residential zone, was charged with violating the ordinance. He argued the ordinance was unconstitutional under the South Dakota Constitution's equal protection and due process clauses. Winker asked the court to use the approach taken by state courts that had struck down similar ordinances under their constitutions. He argued that the 'ordinance was not logical because the size regulations were not imposed on people who were related. The city said its ordinance was similar to the ordinance upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Belle Terre case. It urged the South Dakota court to take the same approach and uphold the ordinance. The court upheld the ordinance, and Winker appealed. DECISION: Affirmed, in favor of the city. Brookings' ordinance did not violate the state constitution. The ordinance had a real and substantial relation to the goaI of limiting population density. Brookings was a college town with unavoidable problems of population density, l~t attacked the density problem by drawing a line at the number of unrelated people who could live in the same household. Zoning ordinances were presumed valid, and Winker's evidence was not strong enough to overcome the presumption. Though some other state courts had struck down similar ordinances under their constitutions, the court was under no obligation to follow those courts. If an unrelated group of adults exceeded the limit, it was by "voluntary action of the group." If a blood-related family exceeded the limit, it was due to "natural growth." see also: Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. l, 94 S. Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ea. 2a 797 (1974). see also: Charter Township of Delta v. Dinolfo, 351 N. W. 2d 831 (1984).