Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/05/1995

Home

I I I ! I I I I I I I I I ,I I I Z.go November 15, 1995 -- Page 7 In J~Une 1994, the city residents voted to repeal the ordinance. The!Greens appealed. It claimed the ordinance rezoned, rather than zoned, the property. The Greens said rezoning was an administrative act, and admini- strative iacts were not subject to the power of referendum -- only legislative acts were. The Greens also said the ordinance's repeal was unconstitutional because some city residents who voted were not even affected by the ordinance. The icity claimed it zoned the property. Even if its actions were considered rezoning, both rezoning and zoning were legislative acts. DECISI~DN: Affirmed. Botli rezoning and zoning were legislative acts subject to the power of referendum, and the repeal of the ordinance was not unconstitutional. A st~ate statute allowed voters to use the power of referendum to propose~ amend, .0r repeal "[r]esolutions and Ordinances within the legislative juris- diction ~ind power of the governing body of the local government." Contrary to The Greens' arguments, there was no fundamental difference between zon- ing and rezoning. Both were legislative enactments, and both were within the city's "l~gislative jurisdiction." The state Legislature did not make any dis- tinction Between them when it enacted the statute regarding referenda. Repe~aling the. ordinance was not unconstitutional. The property had his- torical a~d social significance for the entire city -- not just residents whose land ab~tted the property. For many years, the public had used the property for community-wide functions. The planned residential development would affect pgblic services~ schools, the city housing market, nearby residents and facilities~ and traffic and development patterns. : see also: Schanz v. City of Billings, 597 P.2d 67 (J979). ~ . Editor's ~ote: The court noted that this was the first known case in Montana history i.~ which a zoning decision created enough controversy "to place the issue before the voters." Also, in finding no distinction between zoning and rezoning? the court expressly overruled some specific contrary language in Lowev. City of Missoula, 525 P.2d 551 (1974). Nonconforming Use Owner Wants to Change Funeral Home to Bed and Breakfast Kopi*tz v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the City of the Village of Clar~, ton, 535 N. W..2d 9:10 (Michigan) 1995 Kopie, tz owned a funeral home in a residential district of Clarkston, Mich. The hom~ was a legal nonconforming use. Kopictz filed a petition with the Zoning Board of Appeals to change the business io a bed and breakfast inn -- also a nonconforming use. According to the cit~ zoning ordinance, "[A]ny nonconforming use ... may be changed to another nonconforming use provided that the Board of Appeals ... shall find that the proposed use is more appropriate to the district than the existing nonconforming use." After ra public hearing, the board denied the petition, finding the bed and breakfast aVould not be a more appropriate nonconforming use than the funeral