Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/08/1999

Home

Page 4 -- September 25, 1999 Z.B. was invalid because the city didn't comply with the notice requirements of the state Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA). Shortly thereafter, the city passed another ordinance that rezoned the developer's property to "general residential." The developer appealed to court, claiming the ordinance was invalid because the city's comprehensive plan, upon which the ordinance was based, violated the LLUPA. When the LLUPA was passed in 1975, it required local planning commis- sions to create a comprehensive plan by 1977. The plan, which had to consider previous and existing uses, had to include a zoning map. The LLUPA was amended in 1995 to state comprehensive plans also had to include a "property rights" component to ensure land use policies didn't violate private property rights. According to the developer, the city's comprehensive plan had neither a zoning map nor a property rights component, so any ordinance based on the plan was invalid. The city claimed its plan was valid because it contained all the required criteria except the land use map and a property rights component. It claimed the absence of a land use map and th~ property rights component were merely "temporary defects." The developer asked the state's highest court to find the city's rezoning of its property was invalid. DECISION: Request granted. The rezoning ordinance was invalid. The city's comprehensive plan didn't comply with the LLUPA. A valid comprehensive plan was a precondition to the validity of any zon- ing ordinance, and the city's comprehensive plan was invalid. The city couldn't claim the absence of a land use map was a "temporary defect." That require- ment was included in the original LLUPA when it was passed in 1975. The city's claim concerning the absence of the property rights component in its comprehensive plan was more plausible, because that requirement was added to the LLUPA in 1995. But this was irrelevant because the absence of a land use map invalidated the rezoning ordinance. Citation: Sprenger, Grubb & Associates Inc. v. City of l-Iailey, Supreme Court of Idaho, No. 24483 (1999). see also: State v. CiO, of Hailey, 633 P. 2d 576 (1981). Rezoning -- Neighbor says rezoning request didn't properly identify affected lots CONNECTICUT (8/10/99) Konover asked the city of Torrington's zoning commission to change the zoning of three parcels from single family to local business. It prepared a boundary survey map, which was certified and stamped by the town clerk. It also filed a location map showing the parcels affected by the zoning change.