49. Substantial relationship.
a. "The great weight of authority convinces us that these sections
[allowing only residential buildings & sheds], as applied to the property
involved in this case [church], bear no substantial relationship to the promotion
of the health, safety, morals, convenience, property, or general welfare of the
city of Reno, or of its residential district, and that they constitute an invasion
of the property rights of petitioner corporation." [and violation of fed and state
constitutions - due process; at 246]
Bishop of Reno v. Hill, 59 Nev. 231, 239, 90 P.2d
217 (1939). No. 1.
b. "Unless we can say that the ordinance, as it affects petitioner's
property, discloses an unreasonable or arbitrary exercise of power by the zoning
authorities and has no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals
or general welfare, it is neither the duty nor the province of this court to interfere
with the discretion invested in these authorities."
State v. Coleman, 67 Nev. 636, 641, 224 P.2d
309 (1950). No. 2.
c. "The oft repeated, although ill defined, limitation upon
the exercise of the zoning power, requires that zoning ordinances be enacted for
the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the community. (citation omitted)
Such ordinances must bear a substantial relationship to those police power purposes.
(citation omitted) And if the ordinance does, in its application to specific properties,
impose an 'unnecessary hardship,' it cannot be termed a reasonable or constitutional
exercise of the police power. To preserve the validity of the zoning ordinance
in its application to the community in general, the use permit and variance provisions
of the ordinance function as an 'escape valve,' so that when regulations which
apply to all are unnecessarily burdensome to a few because of certain unique circumstances,
a means of relief from the mandate is provided."
Coronet Homes, Inc. v. McKenzie, 84 Nev. 250,
256, 439 P.2d 219 (1968). No. 10.
d. "The Kohler court [Town of Vienna Council
v. Kohler, 244 S.E.2d 542, 548 (1978)] concluded that 'a denial of a rezoning
request will not be sustained if under all the facts of the particular case, the
denial is unreasonable, or is discriminatory, or is without substantial relationship
to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare.'"
Nova Horizon v. City Council, Reno, 105 Nev. 92,
95, 769 P.2d 721 (1989). No. 36.