Court Opinion

ID: 9592100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:10:23.847691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:15.278230
License: Public Domain

Targonski, J.
(concurring). I concur in the opinion for reversal of the trial court on the basis of the authorities and conclusions therein stated as to the question of safety and public welfare. I do *57not, however, concur in the portion of the opinion related to aesthetic considerations, especially in light of the fact that the ordinance in question does not provide any yardstick for the measure of such aesthetic considerations. We will all live to rue the day that public officials are permitted to meddle in private affairs on aesthetic considerations since as the majority opinion states each person has his own yardstick for the evaluation of matters aesthetic. We should not open this door which could very well lead to a situation of a most highly regulated society in the world at the whim and caprice of individual officials without any proper measure for a limitation on such individual values rather than values prescribed by law.
Nevertheless we do agree that from a standpoint of safety considerations which are amply provided for in the ordinance we must reverse. We concur in the result.