Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/02/2002

Home

I I I I I I !. i I ! I I I I I I I I Z.B. April 10, 2002 -- Page 3 The ordinance was an apparent attempt to control foul and nauseous odors created by these animals and to prevent animals from defecating and rooming on the property of others. The Ordinance also prohibited property owners~em keeping livestock on land that was not zoned as agricultural; In October 2000, the city mailed' letters to five residents, advising them. they were keeping livestock on their property in violation of the ordinance. The letters also warned the residents to remove the animals within 30 days or the city would take action to impound the animals. If the residents refused to pay for the costs ofianpoundment, the'city would Sell the animalsin an attempt. to recover the costs. The residents sued, seeking'an injunction to prevent city officials from seizing their livestock. The city asked the: coUrt to dismiss the claim. ... The court ruled in favor of the city and dismissed the claim. The residents appealed, arguing that in enforcing the ordinance, the city would be making an unlawful entry onto their property and an unlawful taking of their livestock DECISION: Reversed. . Although the city could ultimately shoTM the ordinance was an appropriate exercise of police power, it was premature to dismiss the claims. The issue was whether the ordinance Was a valid exercise of the city's police power. If so, the test of the validity of the exercise of the police power was "reasonableness." The court agreed the enforcement of the ordinance would inevitably result in the entry onto the appellants' property and the taking of their livestock with- out just compensation. There was no basis for the court to determine whether the ordinance was a proper exercise of its police power. The case should not have been dismissed because further proceedings were required. Citation: Glenn v. City of Grant City, Cour~ of.Appeals ofMissouri, W. Dist., No WD 59807 (2002). 'see also: City of Macon v. Belt, 561 S. W. 2d 117(1978). Accessory Building -- Property owner builds garage apartment after home cannot be moved onto lot Board denies variance, claiming it was accessory building NEW YORK (02/19/02) -- A property :owner acquired his property when a larger lot owned by his father was subdivided into three smaller Iots. The owner intended to move an existing structure onto bis property to be used-as · home. In anticipation of the move, the'owner constructed a garage to be used, subor- dinate to th.e larger structure. it was later determined the movement of the structure onto the owner's lot was not possible. The owner then finished the upper' floor of the garage and used it as a living space. When town officials discovered the residential use of the garage, the owner 245