Opinion ID: 2060432
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Was equal protection denied?

Text: Appellant contends that the denial of its intended use of the 28 acres is arbitrary and capricious and amounts to a denial of its rights under both state and federal constitutions. A zoning ordinance is presumed to be valid and one challenging such an ordinance must make the fact of its invalidity clearly appear. [25] While it is true, as appellant contends, to be valid an ordinance must present a reasonable basis for the different treatment of persons or organizations, [26] there is nothing in the instant record to suggest that the denial of the applications for zoning and occupancy permits was arbitrary or unreasonable. The denial was in accord with practice of long standing and was pursuant to a validly enacted comprehensive zoning ordinance of long standing. Appellant must do more to establish arbitrariness than merely assert its existence. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.