Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2011 I Volume 5 1 No. 5 Zoning Bulletin <br />tected by the constitutional right to due process." Therefore, no law re- <br />quired a contested case hearing for a subdivision permit application. <br />The court remanded Gold's subdivision permit application back to the <br />Board for further consideration under a public hearing. <br />See also: Foster's Inc. v. City of Laramie, 718 P.2d 868 (Wyo. 1986). <br />Case Note: The court also noted that a "subdivision permit appli- <br />cation is more nearly akin to legislative action[ —which produces <br />a general rule or policy —]than it is to adjudicative action[ —which <br />applies to identifiable persons and specific situations]" because a <br />subdivision "implicates many policy and public welfare consider- <br />ations." The court said that while the determination of "adjudica- <br />tive facts" requires a contested case hearing, the determination of <br />"legislative facts" does not. <br />Referendum —After County Rejects Citizens' <br />Proposed Zoning Amendment, Citizens Demand <br />Referendum Vote <br />County says proposed amendment is not a legislative <br />decision and thus not referable to a referendum vote <br />Citation: Grant County Concerned Citizens v. Grant County Bd. of <br />Com'rs, 2011 SD S, 2011 WL 325630 (S.D. 2011) <br />SOUTH DAKOTA (02/02/11)—This case addressed the following is- <br />sue: "whether a proposed amendment to a zoning ordinance that is re- <br />jected by a county commission is referable to the qualified voters of the <br />county." <br />The Background/Facts: Grant County Concerned Citizens ("Citi- <br />zens") submitted a proposed amendment to a zoning ordinance to the <br />Grant County Board of Commissioners (the "Board"). Citizens pro- <br />posed to increase the setbacks for concentrated animal feeding opera- <br />tions. After public hearing and consideration, the Board rejected Citi- <br />zens' proposed amendment. <br />Citizens then petitioned the Board to refer the proposed amendment <br />to a public vote. The Board rejected this referendum petition. It said that <br />the matter was not referable. <br />Citizens then filed in court a request for the court to order (i.e., a writ <br />of mandamus) the Board to refer the proposed amendment to a public <br />vote. The circuit court agreed with the Board. It held that Citizens' pro- <br />6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters <br />