Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/2005

Home

Z.B. March 25, 2005 -- Page 7 Since the relevant section of the ordinance contained the disjunctive "or," and Gensheimer's home was a permitted use in the district, he could build a new roadway even without a permit from the board'and even if a reasonable means o~' access existed. see also: Hathaway v. city of ?ortIand, 845 A.2d 1168 (2004). see also: Peregrine Developers LLC v. Town of Or°no, 854 A.2d 216 (2004). Ordinance -- City limits where firearms dealers can operate Dealer loses lease, cannot find property on which to reopen Citation: Koscietski v. City of Minneapolis, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, No. 03-4902 (RHK/JSM) (2005) MINNESOTA (01/26/05) --The city of Minneapolis adopted a zoning ordi- nance restricting where firearms dealers bould operate. Under the ordinance, dealers had to be at least 250 feet from the nearest residence or office residence district, and at least 500 feet from churches, schools, daycare centers, libraries, or parks. [n addition, dealers could only operate in certain downtown zoning districts as conditional uses. Koscielski's Guns and Ammo lost its lease, and, because of the ordinance, could not find new property on which to reopen. Koscielski sued; arguing the ordinance was arbitrary.and irrational because it left a limited amount of places where firearms dealers could operate. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the city. Koscielski failed to prove the ordinance was arbitrary or irrational. In general, an ordinance carried a presumption of rationality that could only be overturned by a clear showing of irrationality or arbitrariness. Consequently, an ordinance would not be overturned unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons was unrelated to the achievement of. any combination of legitimate purposes. To invalidate the ordinance, Koscielski had to nullify every conceivable basis for the ordinance. However, Koscielski only showed that there were a limited number of locations that were available for f~rearms dealers to operate. The court concluded that that the number of locations where firearms dealers could have their stores was not the sole determinative factor to prove the ordinance was irrational. Without more, Koscielsld failed to show the ordinance had no conceivable basis for support. Although Koscielski believed the city's ordinance was unwise and unfair, it was not the court's role to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of Iegislative choices. .~'ee atso." BZ~tPS Inc. v. City of Mankato, 268 F. 3d 603 (2001). . .vee rd.5'o: Car?eJ2ter O~tdoor Advertising Co. v. City of Fenton, 25] F. 3d 686 (200l). cc) 2005 Quinian Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 109