Wild animal law

							THE DONAHUE PROJECT
SECTION EFGH, WINTER 2005
Zoning

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

   Facts. P is a municipal corporation (the village of Euclid) and its building
    inspector. D is Ambler Realty Co., owner of 68-acre tract of unimproved land at
    the village's west end. P is an appellant from an earlier adverse judgment. D,
    the appellee, had filed suit against P, seeking to enjoin P from enforcing a zoning
    ordinance. This was granted by the lower court. D's land was unimproved but
    was abutted to the east and west by built-up residential tracts. The village's
    zoning system consisted of 'use districts,' 'height districts,' and 'area districts.'
    These classes overlap. D's property is located in three use districts – U-2, U-3,
    and U-6. It is alleged that the land's market value for industrial use is $10,000
    per acre, but only $2,500 per acre for its permitted residential uses. A section of
    this land along Euclid Av. is valued at $150 per front foot if unrestricted, and $50
    otherwise. D claims that the reduction in value due to the zoning restrictions is a
    deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law under the 14th
    amendment.

Opinion. The decree enjoining P from enforcing the zoning ordinance was reversed.
   The court uses the standard of rational basis review to assess the claim. The
   particular question here is “Is the ordinance invalid in that it violates the
   constitutional protection 'to the right of property in the appellee by attempted
   regulations under the guise of the police power, which are unreasonable and
   confiscatory?” No, it is not. This is a foundational case upholding municipal
   zoning powers.
Rationale. The zoning restrictions have a rational relation to the health and safety
   of the community, and hence, D's property has not suffered an injury that
   violates D's 14th amendment rights.
       oThe zoning ordinance is upheld in general terms, not as it specifically applies
           to D's land. The court rejects the idea of an injunction against P's zoning
           enforcement merely on the basis of D's fear of enforcement, noting that
           relief must derive from “a present infringement or denial of a specific
           right.”
       o The zoning ordinance does not '[assume] the character of a merely arbitrary
           fiat,' and it is within the “bounds of reason,” thus passing the rational
           basis test.
       oOrdinances must therefore “find their justification in some aspect of the
           police power, asserted for the public welfare.” The court notes that
           ordinances must be considered in the context of the “circumstances and
           the locality.” This is likened to the law of nuisance, where alleged
           nuisances are examined in terms of their particular surroundings.
       oThe court describes zoning as a means of maintaining order while society
           becomes more complex. This policy argument expresses the desire that
           regulations ought to be able to keep pace with “new and different
           conditions.” Other concerns include the court sees addressed by zoning
           include fires, traffic, noise, the prevention of 'nervous disorders,' and the
           prevention of bulky apartment buildings from blocking sunlight and
           changing an area's “character.”
       oHence, the exclusion of various sorts of land uses from residential areas
           bears a rational relation to the community's health and safety.
       oThe fact that Euclid is a suburb of Cleveland does not impinge upon its rights
THE DONAHUE PROJECT
SECTION EFGH, WINTER 2005
           as a municipality to set local zoning rules.
       oZoning laws are allowed to have “a reasonable margin” built into them, since
           there is no clear line between what is 'good' and what is 'bad' in terms of
           land usage.
    Editors. GS 4/30/05.

State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley (1970) (p. 1048)

   Facts. The Architectural Board of Ladue refused to issue a building permit to construct a
    proposed single family residence that was “unusual in design” but that complied with all
    of the existing building and zoning regulations of the City of Ladue. City Ordinance 131,
    as amended by Ordinance 281, sets up the Architectural Board which approves plans for
    buildings erected within the city, and ensures that the buildings conform to certain
    architectural standards of appearance and conformity with surrounding structures, and
    that
            o “unsightly, grotesque and unsuitable structures, detrimental to the stability of
                value and the welfare of surrounding property, structures and residentsand to
                the general welfare and happiness of the community be avoided” and that
                standards of beauty be fostered.
    The house to be built is pyramid-shaped, with a flat top, with triangular windows and
    doors. The neighborhood in which they seek to build the house is filled with houses of
    conventional design.
   Issue. Are Ladue City Ordinances 131 and 281, which provide for certain aesthetic
    standards for new construction, to be decided by an Architectural Board,
    unconstitutional because they are too vague and an arbitrary and unreasonable exercise
    of the police power?
   Reasoning: The ‘Relators’ Argument: the relators (the ones who want to build the
    house) allege that the ordinances are invalid and unconstitutional because they are
    vague and do not provide a standard uniform rule to guide the Board, the city has
    unlawfully delegated legislative powers to the Architectural Board, and the city has made
    an unlawful and arbitrary use of its police power. They want the ordinances declared
    void and a permit to build the house issued.
   The City’s Argument: The city claims the city is zoned in such a way in order to
    promote the health and general welfare of society, and Ordinances 131 and 281 were
    passed in furtherance of that general welfare goal. It also claims that the ordinances
    are in furtherance of the general welfare, and that the ordinances were a reasonable
    exercise of the city’s powers. The city of Ladue is a rich suburb, and the city claims that
    the ordinances are necessary to protect and maintain the property values. A developer
    and a consultant for a city planning firm testified that the proposed pyramid house
    would have an adverse affect on surrounding homes.
   The Court: The court determines that the Ordinances are not arbitrary and
    unreasonable if the city is acting with the purpose of promoting the general welfare.
    Unusual structures such as the one proposed by relators can have an adverse affect on
    property values. Lower property values would then affect the city tax base and the
    general public. The aesthetic factor is not the only factor to be considered; the
    Architectural Board must also look to the effect the proposed residence would have on
    property values in the area. As such, the Ordinances have the purpose of promoting the
    general welfare, and they are valid.
   Class Discussion: Schneider’s hypo: Imagine that this is a covenant, not a zoning
    ordinance. Is there any reason why we should/shouldn’t enforce this covenant as a
    covenant?
            o For: There was agreement by the community, which may give more
                legitimacy to the architectural standards (you knew what you were signing up
THE DONAHUE PROJECT
SECTION EFGH, WINTER 2005
              for). Why ask the government to intervene in an agreement between private
              citizens? Why not say, it is a free country, and private landowners can make
              such agreements?
           o Against: Covenants are not objective: What is unsightly, grotesque and
              unsuitable? Who makes that decision? BUT: Schneider asks, so what if the
              covenant is not objective? Why does a private agreement between
              landowners have to be objective?
           o Back to zoning: Why does the government have the power to zone? It
              is a coercive power, it severely limits power to use land, and we let the
              government do it in an unconstricted way. Takings law is one of the
              few constraints in zoning, and taking law does not pose a huge
              restriction on zoning.
           o Wrap-up: Schneider doesn’t think much of the idea of individual
              diversity as an argument against restrictive covenants. America is a
              pluralist society; that is, we have a diversity of groups of people here
              in the U.S., and have an interest in making sure those groups stay
              groups; otherwise, we run the risk of creating a standard ‘diverse’
              society where no one has a choice to live differently. There seems to
              be a sense that as long as the restriction is contained and there
              remains plenty of choice, covenants such as those in his hypos should
              be enforced.
      Editors. AK 4/19/05.