Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,.-....~;..;.;.""-:"'"U.r~'-4_'_='.',,~;..:;...._.,.,; <br /> <br />....~,.,;y.~_.<.;""'"'"_........;.""w.:..<..-... <br /> <br />.',,'v..._'~->:"""""""""'~""""'-';'.."':'>__"""""""'.' <br /> <br />// <br />, <br /> <br />... .._~.--, w,,'.....,.~_.____,_:;~.,~., ..~_,-.."...-:o.<o,;...."" _. "'......,;,.....c.:..o'".....:""''''''.,,;...;;;.;:,, .~.....~:_..;.....",,.;-; <br /> <br />,/" <br /> <br />COI,,-, ,>IONS OF LA. <br />I <br />The City of New Brighton Ordinance Section 10-140, <br />Exceptions, specifically excludes "radio and television towers" <br />from height limitations "unless in the opinion of the Building <br />Inspector such structure might be dangerous or in other ways <br />detrimental". There was no showing of this, the testimony being <br />to the contrary. <br /> <br />n <br />The aforesaid Ordinance is vague in that it lacks <br />specific standards for its application and subjects itself to <br />arbitrary and capricious enforcement and does not meet <br />Constitutional requirements. <br /> <br />III <br />To subject the defendant to the standards of the second <br />Ordinance (August 1981) after he had relied on the previous <br />Ordinance in 1979 when construction began, and having been <br />told the following Spring to complete construction and submit <br />documents which were approved and the structure found to be safe <br />and not dangerous would clearly be in conflict with the <br />ex post facto provision of the Constitution and would not stand. <br />IV <br />Attached and'made a part hereof are Menoranda and a copy <br />of the applicable Ordinance marked Exhibit A. <br />V <br />The defendant is found Not Guilty as charged. <br /> <br />SO ORDERED <br /> <br /> <br />Dated: January 11, 1983 <br /> <br />-3- <br /> <br />/ <br /> <br /> <br />