Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Page 2 - September 10, 1997 Z.B. ? Code Violation - City cites woman for having pickup truck in driveway City of Nichols Hills v. Richardson, 939 P.2d 17 (Oklahoma) 1997 Richardson lived in the city of Nichols Hills, Okla. A city ordinance made it illegal to park in Richardson's zoning district in open view any vehicle other than a "private passenger vehicle" (which excluded pickup trucks) between the hours of 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. Richardson owned a pickup truck, which she needed because she was a horse trainer. Her pickup, which she used for both personal and business purposes, wasn't registered commercial and had no commercial markings or signs. Richardson couldn't afford to buy a separate "town car" to park in her driveway just so she could comply with the ordinance. Richardson had kept a pickup truck in her driveway since 1980, but in 1991 the city decided to enforce the ordinance against her. Richardson sought a variance, which the city denied in 1992. A few months later, a city police officer cited Richardson for violating the ordinance. The city court found Richardson guilty. It fined her $100 but suspended the fine. Richardson appealed, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutional. The city argued "aesthetics" was one of the main reasons it passed the ordinance and that the prohibition against pickup trucks directly related to its interest in controlling land use and maintaining land values. The appeals court reversed Richardson's conviction and ruled the ordinance was unconstitutional. It found the ordinance was arbitrary and an unreasonable restriction on Richardson's property rights. The city appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance was unreasonable and overbroad and therefore unconstitutional. Although aesthetic zoning measures aimed at maintaining property values could be valid, the city's ordinance didn't promote aesthetics as the city claimed. Any vehicle that met the definition of "private passenger vehicle" - no matter how ugly, rusted, or offensive - could be parked in the city between 2 a.m. and 5 a.m. However, not a single pickup - no matter how new, expensive, or "pleasing to the eye" - could be parked in any driveway during those hours. .This contradiction belied the city's claim that it passed the ordinance to protect the aesthetic integrity of the community. During the hours from 2 a.m. to 5 a.m., people that could be offended by the sight of a pickup couldn't see a pickup, or any other vehicle for that matter, because it was dark then. These same people, however, could see an "opera- tional rusted-out jalopy" in any driveway during the daylight hours. It was impossible to see how a shiny new pickup would negatively affect property values when a rusted-out jalopy would not. see also: Proctor v. City of Coral Springs, 396 So.2d 771 (1981). see also: Neetow v. City of Cambridge, 277 U.S. 183, 48 S.Ct. 447, 72 L.Ed. 842 (1928). ~I . -. ;-::,