Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/2010

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 10, 2010 ~ Volume 4 ~ No. 7 j'(~ Planned Development-2 (PD-2). The rezone would increase the number of homes Gibby could develop on the property from 20 to 47. In August 2007, the city council, pursuant to the settlement agree- ment with Gibby, enacted a new ordinance that rezoned a portion of the Gibby property to PD-2. Thereafter, Friends of Maple Mountain ("Friends"), a Utah not- for-profit organization comprised of citizens of the city, filed a peti- tion for referendum with the county clerk. Friends wanted the city council's action in creating the PD-2 zone to lie subjected to a refer- . endum vote by the city's citizens. Friends also filed a legal complaint in district court. `The district court eventually determined that the city council's ac- tion in creating the PD-2 zone was not subject to referendum. The court said this was because the action was administrative.in nature, not legislative. Friends appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of district court reversed. The Supreme Court of Utah held that the city council's action in cre- ating the ED-2 zone was subject to referendum because it was a legisla- ~~ tive action.. __ In so holding, the court explained that citizens have a right to a ref- erendum only "when the law or ordinance the voters seek to challenge was enacted legislatively as opposed to administratively...." In other words, legislative matters are referable, administrative matters are not. In its decision, the court seta new "bright line rule" for other Utah courts to follow: "the adoption of a new zoning classification is .per se legislative action." Thus, whenever a Utah municipality adopts a new zoning classification-creating "a zoning option that did not previously exist"-that action must be considered legislative. As such, the action is subject to citizen referendum. Here, the. court concluded that because the city created a new zoning classification, its action was therefore legislative and subject to referendum. See also: Citizen's Awareness Now a Marakis, 873 P.2d 1117 (Utah 1994). Case Note: In its decision, the court emphasized the "other side of the coin": "when a municipality acts to adjust an exist- ing zone"-as opposed to creating a new zone-"it more likely (J acts administratively." The court gave examples of such "adjust- ments": routine changes such as variances, conditional use, and density changes. Although such adjustments to existing zones are © 2010 Thomson Reuters 45