Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2009

Home

{~) Zoning Bulletin March 25, 2009j Volume 31 No.6 !{) Staff ofthe city's planning department analyzed the Hectors' requests. Ultimately they determined that the requested zone change "was too in- tense and not in. keeping with the [c Jity's plans." The staff recommended the Hectors' proposed amendments be denied. The city commission (the "Commission") later accepted that recommendation and denied the Hec- tors' application. The Hectors appealed the Commission's decision to distriCt court. Among other things, they agued that the city "cornniitted a series of con- stitutional violations, [and] failed to identify and articulate reasons for . denying the Hector's zoning requests." The district court found for the city. The Hectors appealed. On appeal, the Hectors argued that: (1) the Commission acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner when it considered the Hectors' application; (2) since the city's policy plap. cQntaining goals, objectives, and standards pertainmg to zoning regulations was not "passed under the required statutory procedures" (it was adopted as a resolution rather than an ordinance), the city did not have a comprehensive plan and was therefore in violation of state statutes; and (3) meetings between city officials and the Hectors' legal counsel regarding city concerns about the .Hectors' proposal amoUnted to illegal contract zoning. - () DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Co\lrt of North Dakota first held that the city did not act arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably in denying the Hectors' pro- posed amendments. In so holding, the court first explained that it would have to affirm the city's decision if it found it was the "product of a ra- tional mental process" under which the city relied on both facts and law in reaching its decision on the Hectors' proposals. The court conclud- ed that the city's decision was the product of such a process because in "moving through the steps, analysis and hearings" required by the city's Land Development Code (the "Code"), the city strictly followed the . form and procedu,re required. Moreover, the planning department's deci- sion, upon which the denial was based, was formed by a "reasoned and rational analysis." The court next held that the city complied with statutes requiring it to have a comprehensive plan for its zoning regulations. Disagreeing with the Hectors' contentions, the court found that the policy statements em- bodied in the city's policy plan had later been codified in the Code, and the Code contained standards the city was required to follow when mak- ing zoning decisions. Finally, the court held that the city had not engaged in contract zon- ing with the Hectors. The court explained that contract zoning occurred "when a local government contracts away the exercise of its zoning @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 7 I I I .__ ____J 37