Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

only recourse is~o amend the comprehensive plan itself. Florida provides a good ~xample. Florida Statutes section 163.3184 mandates that municipalities adopt a comprehensive plan, and section t 63.319~(1) requires that zoning decisions be consistent The court analyzed the meaning and application of these statutory provi:~ions in City of Ca?e Canaveral v. Mosher, 467 So.2d 468 (Fla~App. 1985). The city had adopted a comprehensiv(~land-use plan, which designated a large zone including the l~ndowner's property for R-3, medium-density residential use~The city later passed some amendments to its zoning ordinance, which included a rezoning of this property to R-I, allowiP~g only single-family dwelling units. The landowner sought a declaratory judgment to nullify the rezoning. On appeal, ~e city argued that any zoning classification more restrictive or less intensive than that provided by a comprehensiveplan is consistent with that plan. The court, however, rejected this theory because it did not comport with the concept of 6onsistency mandated by the state statute, which defines the legal status of a comprehensive zoning plan to be such that, after its adoption, all land development regulations enacted or amended must be consistent with it. The court gave a detailed explanation of the meaning of consistent, concluding that, "if the compared item deviates or departs in any direction or degree fromithe parameters of the norm, the compared item or action is not 'consistent' with the norm." The court explained that a comprehensive plan's purpose is to "legislativelY" set a norm for each zoning district. Under the Florida statutdi following adoption of such a plan, zoning changes should be made only when existing zoning is inconsistent wkh the plan and then only with the goal of making it mor~ consistent. Otherwise, the plan should be amended legi~htively as to the area of the entire zone or as to the uses permitted within the entire zone. The court concluded that the city's: rezoning of the landowner's property to a more restrictive classification failed to meet the statute's strict consistency rdquirements. Determining Consistency Landowners ind zoning officials need to be knowledgeable about variou~circumstances that tend to show whether a zoning decision has been made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. A court's~ determination of the issue is a fact-based inquiry, which often evaluates various types of evidence, including whether the particular zoning action is the product of reasoned forethought, ~dvances the goals of the comprehensive plan, is based on adequate findings, or took into consideration the impact on ot~er land uses in the area. Reasoned Forethought. In jurisdictions where the comprehensive plan is not a separate planning document, the zoning decislpn must be a product of rational planning consistent wkh the community's basic land-use policies. An Iowa case ill~trates how proof of a lack of reasoned forethought can support ~ claim that the zoning action was not done in accordance with a comprehensive plan. In Wolfv. City of Ely, 493 N.w. 2d 846 (Iowa 1992), the evidence revealed that the zoning auth0fity had essentially developed a new zoning ordinance b?~cutring and pasting different sections and provisions from two or more model municipal zoning ordinances. Further, at least two different zoning maps were identified as the official city zoning map. In invalidating the ordinance, the court stated: The ordinance contains glaring omissions and serious structural problems. Although a significant portion of the land within the city limits is identified as agricultural land, the zoning ordinance makes no provisions regulating its use. Some words and terms that are defined in the ordinance are not used later in the ordinance .... In one part of the zoning ordinance, the city prohibits fences of over five feet; in another part it requires a six-foot fence. The ordinance has 28 separate parking classes for off-street parking, although the population of Ely was 275 in 1970 and 425 in I980. The structural problems in the zoning ordinance obviously arose from a careless combining of two or more model ordinances. Courts have struck down zoning ordinances that provide for only one or two types of permitted uses with all others being allowed only upon application for and approval of a conditional or special use permit. For example, Hardin Count), v. Jost, 897 S.W. 2d 592 (Ky. App. 1995), looked at Hardin County, Kentucky's zoning ordinance, called the Development Guidance System. The ordinance established a conditional use approach to zoning and planning by designating the entire unincorporated area as an agricultural/single-family residential district and designating all other proposed uses as conditional uses to be permitted only after all local regulations were satisfied. The court invalidated the ordinance because it failed to delineate growth patterns and development for the future in contravention of state law, which requires comprehensive planning. (See Ky. Rev. Stat. 100.187.) The court ruled that designating most property in the county as 'agricultural/residential and then allowing for conditional uses was the "antithesis of zoning." Purpose and Goals. Another factor to be considered is whether the zoning authority's decision advances the purpose and goals outlined in the comprehensive plan. Evidence that the zoning body ignored these stated goals, whether the plan is a separate document or a more loosely defined policy, may support a landowner's challenge, especially where specific planning goals are clearly in conflict with the zoning action. (See Bridget Canyon Property Owners'Association, Inc. v. Planning and Zoning Commission, 890 P.2d 1268 (Mont. 1995).) When a state statute mandates that a comprehensive plan be adopted as a prerequisite to enactment ora local zoning ordinance, if no plan is ever adopted, a zoning ordinance cannot be valid and enforceable because said ordinance obviously cannot advance the goals of a nonexistent plan. (See £ennington County v. Moore, 525 N.W. 2d 257 (S.D. 1994).) Findings. Evidence that the zoning body failed to make adequate factual findings may provide grounds for invalidating the decision. The zoning authority must make a factual determination of whether a proposed zoning action will further the goals and take into account the factors contained in the comprehensive plan. If the zoning body's findings indicate that its decision conflicts with the comprehensive plan, the court will ordinarily declare it invalid. On the other hand, if the findings are merely inconclusive, meaning that the court does not have enough evidence on which to determine consistency, the court may opt to remand for further factual findings by the zoning authority. Thus, the action may later be found valid, but the burden will be on the zoning authority to produce adequate findings to show that its decision was made in accordance with the comprehensive plan. (See Love v. Board of County Commissioners ofBingham Coun{y, 701 P.2d 1293 (Idaho 1985).) Neighboring Land Use. Courts have generally stated that neighboring land uses must be considered in order for the zoning action to meet the requirement that it was done in