Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1997

Home

Pag~ 6 -- February 10, 1997 z.g. The plain terms of the zoning ordinance recognized thai landfills were allowed if proper procedures were folIowed and approvals were obtained. The city itself operated landfills. see also: St~eedway Grading Corp. v. Barrow Co., 373 S.E. 2d 205 (]988). see also: PowelI v. City of Snellville, 467 S.E. 2d 540 (1996). Planning- Are 18-year-old regulations a temporary freeze? Citation: Ford v. Board of County Commissioners of Converse County, 924 P. 2d 91 (Wyoming) 1996 The Converse County (Wyo.) Board of County Commissioners adopted a land-use plan but did not adopt any zoning resolutions. Instead, the board used the development regulations included in the county's subdivision, development and flood damage prevention regulations. The regulations, adopted in the 1970s, required landowners to get permits before developing property. If a proposed use did not comply with the county land-use plan, the board of county commissioners could grant a variance. Ford wanted to open a fireworks stand in an area designated rural residential by the land-use plan. After the county told him his permit application was incomplete, he opened the stand without a permit. The board claimed the development regulations barred any commercial operation without a permit or variance. Ford asked a court to declare the regulations invalid to the extent the board claimed they prohibited his fireworks stand. He said that since the board never enacted any zoning resolutions, it could not prohibit the commercial use of unsubdivided land. The board countered that state law did not require counties to enact zoning resolutions, only land-use regulation schemes. The board also said the development regulations were valid as a temporary freeze. The court upheld the regulations, and Ford appealed. DECISION: Reversed, in favor of Ford. The county land-use plan did not have regulatory authority, and the development regulations were not a valid temporary freeze. The county plan by itself had no regulatory authority. Zoning, not comprehensive plans, actually regulated/and use. Comprehensive plans lacked the legal effect of zoning laws. Comprehensive plans were not the same as comprehensive zoning. Zoning was a part of and a product of planning. Counties had broad power to regulate their lands, but the authority was for zoning. Once a county adopted zoning, a landowner could not develop or use any-land within that area without a certificate. The board was strictly bound by the resolution. The 18-year-old development regulations the county wanted to apply to Ford were not a "temporary freeze resolution." Counties had the power to adopt temporary freezes, but only to preserve the status quo until planning and zoning decisions could be made. see also: SheIton u City of Bellevue, 435 P..2d 949 (]968). I ! I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I