Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

Page 4 -- June 15, 1995 Z.B. The city of Springfield, Mo., was a charter city. In 1988, it adopted an ordinance similar to the revised state law. However, it amended its charter with a rezoning provision that resembled the old state law in terms of the percentage of ownership needed to protest and the size of vote required to pass a chal- lenged rezoning petition. In 1992, Whitaker petitioned the city council to rezone his property from multifamily to heavy manufacturing. A neighbor who owned 18.13 percent of the adjoining land filect a protest petition. The city said Whitaker's rezoning petition failed because only five of the nine council members voted for it. This was less than the three-fourths needed to pass the proposal. Whitaker sued the city. He claimed that the city charter violated the state constitution because it was inconsistent with state law. He asked the court to find the protest invalid and to declare that his petition was approved because a majority of the city council approved the change. The court granted Whitaker,judgment without a trial. The city appealed. DECISION: Affirmed in part, in favor of Whitaker. The city's charter provision was unconstitutional because it conflicted with state taw provisions regarding rezoning challenges. The state constitution gave charter cities a lot of power, but cities could not enact laws inconsistent with the constitution or state statutes. The charter wrongfully allowed rezoning protests that the state law did not. The state law required protesters to own 30 percent or more of affected or neighboring property. Therefore, people who owned less than 30 percent could not protest, and the city charter provision was invalid. The state Legislature's intent to make protests more difficult was clear from/ts increase in ownership percentage and decrease in size of vote needed to pass a challenged petition. Gates v. City of Springfield, 744 S. W. 2d 487 (1988). Cape Motor Lodge Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau, 706 S. W. 2d 208 (1986). First Amendment-- Church Says Permit Denial Violates Freedom of Religion Alpine Christian Fellowship v. Country Commissioners of Pitkin County, 870 F. Supp. 991 (Colorado)1994 The Alpine Christian Fellowship was a church in Pitkin County, Colo. The church's corporate bylaws listed education of its youth (including religious instruction) as one of its primary purposes. The church building was in an agri- cultural and forestry zoning district, in which churches were allowed as of right. However, a "special review of use" permit was needed to operate a private school in that district. The church did not have a special review of use permit, but operated a church school in its building. In 1989, a county zoning officer told the church that its operation of a school violated the county Land Use Code. In response, the school closed immediately. In the spring of 1990, under protest, the church applied for approval of the school under the county's special review proce- dure. With the application, the church submitted a letter asking the county to waive the special review process. The church claimed a waiver was proper