Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/01/2012

Home

January 25, 2012 1 Volume 6 1 No. 2 The Court explained that, in reviewing substantive due process chal- lenges to municipal ordinances, it must consider whether the ordinance bears a reasonable relationship to any legitimate interest of government. The burden of proving the invalidity of an ordinance is on the party at- tacking it, said the Court. Thus, here, it was McMaster's burden to show the arbitrary and capricious character of the Ordinance. The Court found McMaster failed to meet that burden. In explaining its holding, the Court noted that a United States Su- preme Court case had found that the federal constitution does not afford substantive due process protection in relation to such occupancy limita- tions. In that case, the United States Supreme Court held that "zoning ordinances which limit the number of unrelated people who may live to- gether in one household do not implicate a fundamental right of associa- tion or privacy and are a valid exercise of a state's police power." The Court here found that rationale persuasive. The Court here also found "a rational relationship between the City's decision to limit to three the number of unrelated individuals who may live together as a single house- keeping unit and the legitimate governmental interests of controlling the undesirable qualities associated with `mass student congestion. "' Having found the Ordinance bore a reasonable relationship to a legitimate inter- est of government, the Court concluded that it did not violate the Due Process Clause of the State Constitution. See also: Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 94 S. Ct. 1536, 39 L. Ed. 2d 797, 6 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1 417, 4 Envtl. L. Rep. 20302 (1974). See also: Harbit v. City of Charleston, 382 S.C. 383, 675 S.E.2d 776 (Ct. App. 2009), as amended, (May 4, 2009). Zoning News from Around the Nation CALIFORNIA Zoning Bulletin A Napa Superior Court judge recently ruled that Napa County's so- called "density bonus" ordinance was legal. "The ordinance grants in- centives to developers who build more affordable housing than the zon- ing code's required minimum, according to the release." Those challeng- ing the validity of the ordinance had reportedly alleged that the county's density bonus ordinance actually discouraged building affordable hous- ing and its long-term housing plans were discriminatory and illegal. Specifically, they contended that affordable housing requirements made it difficult for developers to recover their costs from building low- and very-low-income units. Source: Napa Valley Register; http llnapavalleyregister. com 10 © 2012 Thomson Reuters