Laserfiche WebLink
October 10, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 19 Zoning Bulletin <br />fowl, R-1 zoning did not. The court found that the Board's conclusion <br />that "livestock" and "grazing livestock" (permitted in R-1 zoning) did <br />not include fowl was "not `manifestly unreasonable.' " The court fur- <br />ther found that the Board's decision to deny Hatfield's request to <br />continue keeping or raising fowl was neither arbitrary nor capricious <br />because: the Board's decision was reasoned based on the differing <br />language of Section 501 and Section 601 of the Ordinance as to permit- <br />ted uses in the A-1 and R-1 districts; and the Board considered its past <br />actions in interpreting and applying Section 601, which was consistent <br />with the Board's decision in this case. <br />In making its determination, the court rejected Hatfield's argument <br />that, by not exclusively defining "livestock" or "grazing livestock," <br />Section 601 could be interpreted to include poultry, fowl, and/or birds. <br />The court found that interpretation was "unreasonable," as the listed <br />examples of "livestock" and "grazing livestock" were "obviously <br />limited to large, four -legged, hoofed animals —not `chickens, ducks, <br />turkeys, geese, or other fowl.' " Thus, based on the Ordinance's listed <br />examples and the differing permitted uses for A-1 and R-1 districts, the <br />court held that the terms "grazing livestock" and "livestock" were suf- <br />ficient to notify Hatfield that keeping or raising .fowl on his property <br />was prohibited —and thus were not unconstitutionally vague. <br />See also: Mayor & Bd. of Aldermen, City of Clinton v Welch, 888 So. <br />2d 416 (Miss. 2004). <br />See also: Nichols v. City of Gulfport, 589 So. 2d 1280 (Miss. 1991). <br />Eminent Domain/Fees <br />Developers seek refund of <br />unspent and impermissibly <br />spent impact fees <br />Developers seek refund as unconstitutional taking <br />and/or equitable reimbursement <br />Citation: Alpine Homes, Inc. v. City of West Jordan, 2017 UT 45, <br />2017 WL 3445205 (Utah 2017) <br />UTAH (08/10/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether devel- <br />opers had successfully brought claims for a refund of allegedly unspent <br />or improperly spent impact fees under theories of unconstitutional tak- <br />ing and equitable reimbursement. <br />The Background/Facts: The City of West Jordan (the "City") <br />8 © 2017 Thomson Reuters <br />