OCR Text |
Show 'I POOR,. COPY" 3 "'Vii.n PAGE TWENTY INTERMOUNTAIN COMMERCIAL RECORD In The Supreme Court of The State of Utah Continued from page 19 ' locality: institutions! for education and training.9 The requisites of such a school are: some physical facility, teachers, a curriculum for study o straini10 If these requisites are met. ng, and students who are the objective thereof. the status of the institution is not changed because of variation in' methods of teaching or of training, or of discipline or control. These are all present in greater or lesser degree in practically all schools; and they may vary greatly without preventing one from being properly so characterised. a building and about four acrea of the land, which had been uied ai a country club, to convert into thii school. On January 8, 1973, the Utah County Planning Department issued a permit. On January 25, protecting property owners in the area filed an appeal to the Board of Adjustment. Pursuant to notice and bearing thereon the board agreed with the contention of the that the plaintiffs' institution was not a "school" within the meaning of the county ordinance and ordered the permit revoked. Plaintiffs filed this action in the district court to challenge that order. After a plenary trial, including an inspection of the institution, the court found that it was a "school" and directed the defendants to honor the previously issued permit. pro-testan- ts: In regard to the point upon which the defendants place special emphasis: that because of elements of forcible restraint and severe methods of disci- pline, this is in reality a dentention and correctful institution: there is this very significant difference: the boys are sent to this school by a voluntary choice of their parents; and they can similarly be withdrawn. There is not, nor can there be, any absolute right of detention in the sense there is in public penal or correctional institutions. Commendably, the parties are in'agreement in identifying the issue involved here as: whether the institution known as "The Provo Canyon School" as established and operated by the plaintiffs is a "school" within the meaning of that terms used in the Boning ordinance of Utah County. of land: Consistent with what has been said, it is our opinion that the trial court was justified in concluding that the plaintiffs' institution is a "school" within the meaning of that term as used in the zoning ordinance of Utah County, and in ordering defendants to honor the permit heretofore issued. The ordinance authorizes in this zone buildings, structures, and uses Schools, churches, public parks and playgrounds, arboretums, public buildings . . . 2 WE CONCUR: The argument of the defendants is that although plaintiffs' establishment has some of the attributes of a "school," it "has an additional and paramount purpose that far transcends school attributes" so that it cannot properly be so characterized, but is in reality a detention and correctional institution. In support of this they point out that plaintiffs' advertising is designed to attract maladjusted boys with mental or emotional problems, who need detention and control in connection with their education and training; that they .will take "failing students in a fantasy world," or who are "adversely influenced by drugs," boys with "brain damage," with "schizophrenia symptoms 1. This case is sequel to Crist v. Mapleton City, 28 Utah 2d 7, wherein plaintiffs were prevented from establishing and operating this institution as "The Oal Hills School" in Mapleton, Utah County. 2. Utah County Ordinance No. 02.0970.02. round-tli- o ". . . boys Ellett, Justice HENRIOD, Justice: I'oun.i if in some in-.- .. ,i j .rini Vfit i&tioi:. the ujai iliffa ha lu iide forcible rest i aim burl, sh chains and iTianacles un borne of the :u - r Keep them in locked rooini ;.. :;laiii them. (Dissenting) , o'u The soundness of this doctrine i iiiiiswai-cby cases cited and relied on b the defendants themselves. e or example, they cite in the Matter of lownscnd ior the proposition that a special school fox nurses was held not to be a "school ' as that term is generally utrt in statutes. The isAue arose under a New York law which prohibited the isouance of liquor licenses for locations within 200 feet of a schoolhouse. Inasmuch as it was shown that the age of the nurses was 23 years and over, it was reasoned that this was not the type of school intended to be protected by the statute, but rather elementary and intermediate schools attended by children and youth. Similarly, the case of Granger v. Lorenzen, also relied on by defenrU.'ts, in volved a statutory prohibition of saloons within given distances from "schools." The institution in question was a business college for adults. . In the case of Oovtreux Foundation the ordinance vHch permitted buildings for educational and religious uses had a provision specifically ex- cluding cemeteries, hospital, homes, sanitarium, correctional institution or structure or other place for accommodating the insane or other persons mentally deficient, weak or abnormal. The court found that the school in question came within the quoted exclusion, which was a valid exercise of the .onir.g prerogative. U will thus be seen that the cases reierred 10 are not in discoid, out rather are m harmony, with the idea of looking to the context, the background and the purpose in which the term "school" is used in order to determine the meaning and intent of the ordinance. In accord with that doctrine and more closely analogous to our case is Wiltwyck School, etc. v. Hill. The institution was a special one for the care and instruction of delinquent, neglected and maladjusted boys, who were referred there because of their failure to along in society, and where many needed special discipline and psychiatric r,)Tf. j challenge Wcto made dimilai u. that urgi'd hiie: That it was not a " sch;., ;,i1' Within the rntj'iing of the ordinance. Upon a lucid discussion the 1. m a : education, traip:n and ?rrsoul ipn'ying uvk, to tne rnaladjisi-i.- ', - r ri th-::t !!i'S mciilailj lis 'M ovsjt-i, that their eduf it 5. Wtl)htcr's New lnternatiori.il ihV.t.ur.aj y, id contains more than two f d and of the initions uses "school." d;..en 4. Cf. Kuril Cluti'v. Tororto, 6 IHr.h A 6f, iOs P. dd K70. .o.-iir- -- i- ; -- : m,c;-;rli:- Appeal from a judgment directing the zoning authority to grant a boys, - described in a predecessor decision permit to allow a "school" for 1 of ours, of similar import, as a "detention place" for 26 wayward boys, including drug addicts from ages 12 through 17, and to afford them such training and "schooling" as "would he proper," - basing our decision apparently on a technlcsl procedural rule, but obviously because the people of Mapleton did not feel safe to have a "school," as we said, inhabited by wayward boys, - drug addicts and otherwise. The main opinion completely har ignored privste property rights. It says, in effect, that you may put a "school" for incorrigibles or those law-abihaving violent or homicidal tendencies next door to an erstwhilelng citizen who certainly would not h.ivi purchased his property had he TF.Td o3C 1. Crist v. Mapleton City, ZSljUh'd i tit action of not theinr i.ui .! ies I nut luriied it ivmi., iriuciij-ii.(i ' i ti .n:l.: M' t thir mii? uiir a thai overruled them, or Ijv . t ;. school, ". in tne tomr.ion ... ;.!.-. - N. Y. 214, 88 N. K. 41. Ws, 133 N.W. i59. '551 Pa. 478, 41 A. 2d 744. 11 N. Y. 2d 182, 182 N. E. 2d 268. 19S a S. I. the meaning of "school," where there was no qualiand training fication or limitation upon that term. came-withi- n Looking at the circumstances shown in our case in the light of what has been said above, we think it was reasonable and proper for the trial court to take the view that the meaning of "schools" as used in the ordinance in question was in the sense it is most commonly used and understood in that d-. . i.- . seems to me that . - p:-.u- - c .mr.iuiil i en.lMyc '.: it.:ist, .'r in.-if . rectiunal institution. or Di! i ;jJ . i iminu: rehabilitated, will be replaced by iht. - t type ui at tunl oi potential cr liri.nalb, i'! inl'in.tum. One wonders hu- ;i.e .r.r.riUi i a .,t Uo.s court would react by 'ay of tear ior themselves or their childvei., i ihe n.titution, euuject of this litigation, were established near their hone, o; vhra kind of equitable reaction they would enjoy, if by such establii!.:netii, oi ti.ch institution, where- the main it" cii nn ., ?r.fiies and maximum security opinion concedes there is the use these unfortunate bu. nonemeasures by isolation in locked rooms v '.Ini:t. usuii obviously would be to dewhere theless dangerous misfits, i r much less than previous Bales preciate the value of such homes to .1 s- - to si.ch members. to utter and worthleai.r value, possibly it ir.i-- '.or ii m .iio.-:- 1:1 , , -, J i-- - !" i am of the opinion that the rtrvucatiou ol the plaintiffs' permit by Ihfc Planning Board, better equipped than the District, or this Court, to determine whether admitted conditions of danger, detention of incorrigibles, the use of chains and locked rooms thfereior, io a ''school" in the commonly accepted meaning thereof, - particularly when such conditions and facts do not relate at all to a "school," but perfectly describe and justify need for a "jail" inI stead. Everyone concedes that one of the state prison's primary purposes is to rehabilitate, but I would venture the speculation that not even the wildest of social softies would dub that institution a "school." The main opinion's logic and conclusion would seem to justify the removal of the Utah State Prison from the Point of the Mountain to Penrose Drive or in between the Governor's Mansion and the nearby church house. I re-inst- ate am of the opinion this case should be reversed with instructions to the Planning Board's rejection of the permit. Uniform Commercial Code Filings Alders bar --a ranch, Paris, Idaho, to 1st Sec. Bk. of Idaho; Crops & Livestock. B..& B. 100 U-rr- n 7. 8. A. H. i The foregoing is said to show' how versatile and various some words in their meanings, and to demonstrate the wisdom and the necessity of tne rule applicable here: That where there is doubt or uncertainty a& to liio meaning of terms, they should be analysed in the light of the total content ot the ordinance (or statute or instrument); and also in relation to the purpose, and the background circumstances, in which they are used.' 5. 6. Calllster, Jr. , Chief Justice 9. See 47 AmJur. , Schools, Sec. 2, p. 297: and Sec. 220, p. 459; 78 C. J.S. , Schools and School Districts, Sec. 1, p. 605. 10. Cf. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, Vol. 2, p. 130. oilers 'rctiidfcii'.iai treatment with a therapeutically designed '..;':; .'ivinft ,co, an inr u n ora. iM ileal care," psychiatry," aii otifil disc inline, along n'.W. olncr aspect of education. It is shuVv vVe agiet: that it id not the name ustd that determines the character of an iutttiLutim, but this is to be ascertained from what it actually consists of and its method of operation. The U:rm "Bchool" is a generic one which has numerous meanings. As i noun, it is used to denote various types of institutions oi learning, or specialized schools within such institutions; and in a broader sense, to systems of thought, or of doctrine, philosophy, music or the arts; and also to denote certain groups of fish, or animals, or people; and as a verb in the sense of, to tearh, train or control; and also as an adjective to so characterize many of the nouns. can E. R. R. L. Tuckett, Justice .wi'juol -- i , No costs awarded. Affirmed, C. i'laihiiiitt' MONDAY, MARCH 25, 1974 Iron County; GEORGE , 980 E. Springville, Ut 846t MARIE AVERETT S., to Spanish Fk., 1st Sec. Bk. of Ut.; Livestock. MARVIN R. ASHBY, Garland, Ut 84312 to Trenonton 1st Sec. 3 Bk. of Ut; Crops. MARK ALLEN & MARIAN Spring City, Ut 84662 to Mt. Pleasant 1st Sec. Bk. of Ut.; Equip. DON.O. L. N0YES, Box Ut to Farmers & LINDA 181, Perron, Adminls; Land. Home W. WENDELL FOY & EHID JOHN H. FOY & JOAN V., S., DUNCAN, Roosevelt, Ut 84066 to Ro- CHARLES & DIANE HARRIS, equip. to Ut. Farm to Bk. of n, , Aurora, Ut Prod. Cred. Assc Cattle. RE ID M. PENNEY, Par-owa- & D- to Ut. Farm Prod. Cred. Ass'n; Cattle, feed, & P & G CATTLE CO. osevelt; Livestock. Ut 84761 Snowmobile. & DOLORES RAMSEY, uchesne, Ut BECK, Mt. Pleasant, Ut 84647 to Mt. Pleasant 1st Sec. Bk. of Ut; Equip. MARK E. & PATRICIA A. R. 436 S. 300 W., Fillmore, Ut 84631 to Span. Fk., 1st Sec. Bk. of lit; tuck- - |