CAMAS MILL DISTRICT PLAN
Discussion Draft
January 6, 2026
Appendix 3 Heavy Industrial zoning and cleanup levels Notwithstanding unsupported assertions, an unrestricted cleanup is NOT supported by the legal findings of Our Camas 2045. A litigious property owner could make legal challenges. A legal pillar supporting planning for a century has been use of a city’s police power to serve a public purpose. The United States Supreme Court recognized and affirmed a community’s need and right to keep industrial and nonindustrial uses separated . Given this longstanding precedent, a court might question the basis for 24 DOE imposing an unrestricted cleanup, at greater cost, when the city’s plan shows only Heavy Industry zoning, coupled with the recognized principle to separate industrial lands from receptors, absent the policy and visionary clarification in the Mill District Plan.
Euclid v Ambler Realty: The question whether the power exists to forbid the erection of a building of a particular 24 kind or for a particular use, like the question whether a particular thing is a nuisance, is to be determined not by an abstract consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by considering it in connection with the circumstances and the locality. A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place -- like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. Radice v. New York, 264 U. S. 292, but by considering it in connection with the circumstances and the locality. Sturgis v. Bridgeman, L.R. 11 Ch. 852, 865. A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place -- like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. Radice v. New York, 264 U. S. 292, 264 U. S. 294… the exclusion is in general terms of all industrial establishments, and it may thereby happen that not only o ff ensive or dangerous industries will be excluded, but those which are neither o ff ensive nor dangerous will share the same fate. But this is no more than happens in respect of many practice-forbidding laws which this Court has upheld although drawn in general terms so as to include individual cases that may turn out to be innocuous in themselves. Page of 26 35
Made with FlippingBook interactive PDF creator