Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Page 6- January 10, 1998 Z.B. drainage in his area. He did not, however, prove the alleged harm was likely to occur. He presented evidence of other dried-up wells, but he had no evidence to show Kensington's subdivision would worsen the problem. Because the council's opposing evidence was at least as convincing as Zelnick's, Zelnick failed to meet the requirement of showing the council's decision would directly affect his property rights. He wasn't entitled to have a court review the decision. .' see also: Schomaeker v. First National Bank, 421 N.E. 2d 530 (1981). Density w Citizens claim proposed development exceeds allowed population density Peters v. Spearfish ETJ Planning Commission, 567 N. W. 2d 880 (South Dakota) 1997 Landmark Realty and Development Company owned a 240-acre tract in Lawrence County, S.D. Landmark wanted to develop the land as Spring Creek Ranch, with 55 single-family houses, three clusters of single-family residences with 20 units, an inn, some duplex units, and green space. The tract was zoned for general agriculture. The Spearfish ETJ Planning Commission, the city council, and county board of commissioners approved the planned unit development (PUD). Adjacent landowners and a citizens' group asked the court to declare that the commissioners, the city, and the county exceeded their authority in approving the PUD. The citizens claimed the PUD planning law was ambiguous. The statute allowed for a PUD in three districts, including a general agricultural zone. The law stated district regulations could be changed, so long as overall population densities did not exceed the "densities of specific residential districts." The law did not define "residential districts." The population densities in the three districts where PUDs were allowed ranged from one dwelling per 7,500 square feet to one dwelling per 40 acres in a general agricultural zone. The developers claimed the law plainly allowed modification of population density to accommodate a PUD. The court said the commissioners, the city, and the county exceeded their authority in approving the PUD because the zoning law was ambiguous. The developers appealed. On appeal, the citizens argued the law unambiguously limited the population density of a PUD built on general agricultural land to one dwelling per forty acres. DECISION: Affirmed. The government officials exceeded their authority in approving the PUD. The ordinance was ambiguous. The term "residential districts" was not defined and permitted more than one reasonable interpretation. The wide range of possible population densities allowed by the ordinance's language resulted in an ambiguity. The court interpreted the law to limit a PUD to the population density applicable to the district in which it was proposed. Landmark's proposed PUD