Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2013 Volume 7 1 Issue 7 <br />Rule violated his right to substantive due process because it was not <br />rationally related to Opal's interest in preserving neighborhood aesthetics. <br />The court explained that "before a zoning ordinance can be declared un- <br />constitutional on due process grounds, the provisions must be clearly <br />arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public <br />health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Here, the court found that <br />Opal "could have rationally concluded that the 10-Year Rule would help <br />preserve neighborhood aesthetics," and thus the rule was not clearly <br />arbitrary or unreasonable. <br />See also: Arizona v. U.S., 132 S. Ct. 2492, 183 L. Ed. 2d 351, 115 Fair <br />Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 353, 95 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 44539 (2012). <br />See also: Georgia Manufactured Housing Ass 'n, Inc. v. Spalding <br />County, Ga., 148 F.3d 1304 (11 th Cir. 1998). <br />See also: Texas Manufactured Housing Ass'n, Inc. v. City ofNederland, <br />101 F.3d 1095 (5th Cir. 1996). <br />Case Note: <br />When analyzing the preemptive scope of the Manufactured Housing Act, the <br />court found the guidance of the Fifth and Tenth Circuits helpful. <br />oning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />ARKANSAS <br />The state Senate recently passed Senate Bill 367. "Under the bill, if a <br />state or local law or rule reduces a property value by 10 percent, the prop- <br />erty owner —or even a property user such as a lessee —would have a claim <br />to compensation." Critics say "the bill could complicate the ability of lo- <br />cal governments to regulate anything, large or small." The bill heads to <br />the House Judiciary next. <br />Source: Arkansas Times; www.arktimes.com <br />GEORGIA <br />Pending state legislation, House Bill 176, would reportedly "negate the <br />Federal Telecommunications Act, which authorizes cities to regulate the <br />placement of towers through zoning procedures as long as wireless cover- <br />age is not prohibited." The bill would essentially "subvert the [local} zon- <br />ing process" —with cell phone companies no longer needing to prove <br />things such as a need for the tower or a lack of alternative locations. <br />Source: Johns Creek Patch; htty://iohnscreek.vatch.com <br />© 2013 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />