Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2000

Home

Z.go November 25, 1999 -- Page 7 in an area zoned to allow it, it did not mean the school building did not have to meet state and local fn'e, building, and other public safety regulations that ap- plied to all such buildings regardless of their location. In this case, the county simply insisted that Gamier comply with building code requirements of gen- eral application. Citation: Josephine County v. Gamier, Court of Appeals of Oregon, CA A99472 (1999). : '"' S'ee also: Brentmar v. Jackson Count~, 900 P. 2d 1030 ~1995). see also: Tooker v. Feins~ein, 886 P. 2d 1051 (.1994). .. Rezonin~g - Can School land b'e rez~ned for asSistla-living development? MISSISSIPPI (10/21/99)- Columbia Pacific Management Inc. submitted an application to the city zoning division to rezone property owned by an Episcopal day school. Columbia contracted to buy the property from the school with the intention of building a communitY for independent, elderly people. The city planning board conducted a hearing to rezone the property from special use for a school to a plannedlunit development. At this meeting, the board was given protests signed by more than 365 residents of the community who ~vere opposed to the proposed rezoning. In response, Columbia cited sev- eral changes it made to the plans in order to accommodate the concerns of the community, including moving the building away from the road, decreasing the size of the building, and agreeing to provide a two-acre landscaped buffer be- tween the building and the road. Columbia also claimed the character of the neighborhood had changed due to condorrfiniums and apartments that had been recently built in the surrounding areal The board voted to approve the rezon- ing, and FNR, a local non-profit corporation, appealed the decision fo the city council. . ..] · The council approved the decision. FNR appealed again, this time to the circuit court of the county. The circuit court also approved the decision. FNR again appealed. FNR asserted that there was no clear and convincing evidence of a change in the character of the neighborhood or a public need to justify the rezoning. DECISION: Affirmed. The questions of whether the character of the neighborhood was changed and whether there was a publi.c need'were fairly debatable and would not be overturned by the court. In Mississippi, before a zoning board may reclassify property from one zone to another, there must be proof that either there was a mistake in the original zoning or the character of the neighborhood changed, creating a pub- lic need for rezoning. Courts can only set aside zoning or rezoning decisions that are arbitrary, illegal, discriminatory, or without a substantial evidentiary basis. A court has no authority to set aside a fairly debatable zoning or rezoning decision.