Viewing page 87 of 93

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

(unconstitutional because not authorized by state enabling statute). The lower courts of two other states similarly found such ordinances unconstitutional. Dutton v. Mendocino County, 1949 U.S. Av. 1 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1948); Mutual Chemical Co. of America v. Mayor of Baltimore, 1939 U.S. Av. 11 (Md. Cir. Ct. 1939).

One ordinance has been held unreasonable as applied, although not unconstitutional per se. Banks v. Fayette County Board of Airport Zoning Appeals, 313 S.W.2d 416 (Ky. 1958).

Perhaps it is because only the hardship cases have gone to court, that there appears to be only one state, Florida, which has specifically found such ordinances to be a constitutional exercise of zoning power. Harrell's Candy Kitchen v. Sarasota-Manatee Airport Authority, 111 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1959); Waring v. Peterson, 137 So.2d 268 (Fla. Dist. Ct. of Appeals 1962). In one other state such an ordinance was found to be valid on the ground that it provided for adequate compensation in case there was a taking. Baggett v. City of Montgomery, 160 So.2d 6 (Ala. 1963).

113. In its opinion in the Jankovich case cited in the preceding footnote, the United States Supreme Court said that the Indiana Supreme Court decision did "not portend the wholesale invalidation of all airport zoning law." 379 U.S. at p. 493.

114. There have, however, been a few cases that have involved zoning in airport areas where land use restrictions 

(20)