Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

Page 6 -- December 24, 2003 146 To be constitutional, an ordinance could not place unbridled discretion in the hands of government officials. Such unbridled discretion when vested in a government official amounted to unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint on Free Speech. Ordinances also had to limits the time for a decision by the decision-maker and provide for prompt judicial review. The critical matters of how, Where, why, and when of any hearings con- cerning a license refusal were not included. There were no requirements gov- erning the formulation of a decision and when and how to lodge an administra- tive appeal. Offering the right to request a hearing without including any of the proce- dural steps ~br exercising that right, including nothing regarding the creation of a reviewable record by a court, deprived license applicants of meaningful access to judicial review. Only if' an ordinance permitted or facilitated meaningful' judicial review, by providing the necessa~ procedural safeguards leading up to such review, was ~e ordinance constitutional. Citation: A~nex Books v. Ci~ of &dianapotis, U.S. District Court for the Southern District btdiana, indianapolis Division, No. VSS (2003). see also: FW/PBS D~c. v. City, of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215 (1990). see also: Graff v. City of Chicago, 9 F. 3d 1309 (1993). Spot Zoning -- Development plan calls for recreational uses along riverfront City sues to stop company's dredging operations MICHIG,~MN (11/04/03) -- Carrollton Concrete Mix Inc. owned almost five acres of riverfront property. Since the 1970s, the property was used as a "l_ight- ening dock" where ships moving upstream could lighten their loads by depos- iting some of their cargo. In 1982, a comprehensive development plan was completed by the city. In accordance with the residential character of the city, public opinion was fo- cused on beautification and development of residential and recreational prop- erties along the river. Pursuant to the plan, the zoning of Carrollton's property was changed from industrial to recreational development for the development of a public park. In 1999, Carrollton was using its property for a dredging operation. In violation of the zoning ordinance, Carrollton was storing two piles of bulk mater/al ar least 30 feet high. The city sent Carrollton two letters requesting it discontinue what the city considered an illegal nonconforming use. CarTollton ignored the letters. The city sued. The court raled in favor of Carrollton, finding the city was engaging in illegal spot zoning. The city appealed.