Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. <br /> <br />JulY'25, 2004 -- Page 7 <br /> <br /> Ultimately, Jaylin failed to demonstrate the ordinance was arbitrary or <br />unreasonable, especially in light of the village's, testimony that the two-acre <br />zoning requirement advanced a legitimate environmental interest. <br />see also: Shemo v. Mayfield Heights, 722 N.E. 2d 10j8 (2000). <br />see also: Goldberg Cos. Inc. v. Richmond tfeighrs Ci~. Council, 690 N.£.2d <br />510(1998). <br /> <br />Ordinance -- City limits rental occupancy in single-family districts <br />Landlords and tenants argue the rule violates their constitutional rights <br />Citation: Jones v. Wildgen, U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas, <br />No. 03-2369-KHV (2004) <br />KANSAS (06/02/04-) -- The city of Lawrence adopted ordinances imposing- <br />occupancy limits on residential rental property in areas that were zoned for <br />single-family residences. <br /> The ordinances provided that except for owner-occupied property,, no single- <br />family dwelling could be leased for occupancy by more than three unrelated <br />persons who did not constitute a family. They also required properties to be <br />inspected by city officials. <br /> Ordinance violations could cause an owner's rental license to be revoked <br />and result in fines up to $1,000 per day. Also, the city could disconnect water, <br />sewer, and sanitation services to the property if it chose to do sb. <br /> A group of landlords and tenants sued the city, arguing the ordinances <br />were unconstitutional because they were not based on rational public concerns. <br />DECISION: Case dismissedl <br /> The occupancy limit did not violate the landlords' or tenants' constitu- <br />tional rights. <br /> Maintaining the single-family character of neighborhoods was a legit/mate <br /> <br />public interest. A quiet place where <br />yards were wide, people few, and <br />motor vehicles restricted were.legiti- <br />mate guidelines in a land use project <br />addressed to farmly needs. Enhan. c- <br />ing public safety for tenants in homes <br />that otherwise would not be in- <br />specied was also a legitimate public <br />interest. <br /> [t ,was not unreasonabie to limit <br />the number of unrelated persons who' <br />could live together ro three. Conse- <br />quent!y, the occupancy limit was <br />ti,mall;/ ;~!ated to ~he citv':~ stared <br /> <br />CJustome~.'se]aM'Ce'- ' . <br />(800) 229:-208~' <br />info.@ qui~,tan~ com. <br />Editorial questions/ <br />c.o~en[s: <br />Pat~cia. L Lloyd; Esq... <br />(6 ~.7) 542-0048 <br />g iIsyd O quintan, corn <br /> <br />,7,; 200~- ;um~an ;-',m~ismn9 Stoup. -'or 'e'aroouc:ion is ~rcmb~ted..--or more !niorraation ~,[ease ,:ail (6iT~ 542-00a8. <br /> <br />77 <br /> <br /> <br />