Item 6.2 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

20 Aesthetics, Community Character, and the Law The trial court invalidated the ordinance on several grounds, including the vagueness of the standards prescribed to guide board review. How- ever, the Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed, holding that the ordinance was a valid exercise of the police power and that the standards were ade- quate.It noted that courts had encountered little difficulty in assessing the impact of public improvements on private property for purposes of special assessments, and that to determine the impact of a new structure on ad- joining ones would involve a similar calculus. The second category of ordinances, those prohibiting excessive similar- ity of design,was the subject of scrutiny in a 1985 case involving a Pacifica, California, ordinance that precluded developments that would be detri- mental to the "general welfare" and would be "monotonous" in design (Novi v. City of Pacifica,215 Cal.Rptr.439 (Cal.App. 1985)).The city denied development permits for eight condominium buildings on the grounds that the anti-monotony provisions were not met. In denying the permits, however,it specifically suggested that,if the project's density was reduced to achieve "at-random building placement, reduction in grading and use of retaining walls, avoidance of the linear monotony and massive bulky appearance,and the achievement of a small-scale village atmosphere char- acteristic of Pacifica," approval might be granted. Rejecting the developer's claim that the anti-monotony standard was unconstitutionally vague, the court attached particular importance to the way it was applied in practice. The challenged ordinances were not applied to Novi in a vague man- ner.Indeed,vagueness was never a problem here....[The developers] demonstrably understood what was required....[The developers]de- liberately chose to litigate rather than mitigate.10 A 1984 Ohio case dealt with an ordinance with both similarity and anti-monotony provisions (Village of Hudson v. Albrecht, Inc., 458 N.E.2d 852 (Ohio 1984)). The city had created an architectural and historic board of review and directed it to "take cognizance of the development of adjacent, contiguous, and neighboring buildings and properties for the purpose of achieving safe,harmonious,and integrated development of related properties." In addition, the regulations stated that proposed structures should not violate certain look-alike provisions. Under these rules, the board could not approve an application if more than two spec- ified building features were similar, including roof style; roof pitch; ex- terior materials;location of major design features or attached structures, such as porches and garages; and location of entry doors, windows, shutters, and the like. Based on this general standard, the board took steps to stop the expan- sion of a shopping center that was proceeding without its permission.The property owner defended by arguing that the restrictions were unconsti- tutionally vague. While two dissenting justices agreed with the owner,stating that the or- dinance was based on "vague standards that are beyond any real defini- tion or interpretation," the majority disagreed,citing the existence of other standards in the ordinance that defined"harmonious" as well as requiring that the project be integrated with vehicular and pedestrian traffic pat- terns.Specifically,the ordinance directed the board to take into account de- sign, use of materials, finished grade lines, dimensions, and orientation and location of all main and accessory buildings in determining if the "harmonious" standard was met. Contrast a 1993 case from Issaquah, Washington, which perfectly illus- trates a successful challenge made by a landowner confronted with a set of