12/06/94 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

' someone who will be affected by the decision. Although this relationship may not involve a financial conflict of interest, courts recognize that the associational interest may just as improperly bias the zoning o~fficial's decision. Although the evidence is generally circumstantial that a zoning official's familial, business, or other relationship actually has caused a biased decision, an appearance of unfairness is usually evident. Courts applying this ~tandard will invalidate decisions when an associational interest, raises the specter of impropriety. As with other types of potential conflicts of interest, the courts must weigh the evidence tO determine whether the associational conflict is great-enough to justify invalidating the zoning decision. They will generally examine the nature of both the association and the underlying interest to determine whether it warrants invalidation. Generally, the underlying interest has a greater impact on the court's determination of the issue of impartiality, but a close personal relationship may indicate just as strong a propensity toward bias. Close family relationships, are usually subject to greater judicial scrutiny. More distant familial relationships are generally tolerated, although the nature of the underlying interest may justify invalidating the zoning decision. The potential for bias also may exist because of a zoning official's relationship to various community organizations, although the nature of the underlying interest is usually the determining factor. For instance, courts have found that mere membership in a church that has an interest in proceedings before the zoning body is not enough to warrant invalidating a zoning decision without evidence of actual bias. Prejudice and Bias. This Category is generally based on statements made by a zoning official that reflect a prejudgment of the merits of a particular ZOning application. If the landowner can prove that the zoning de~:ision maker was somehow predisposed to decide his application in a certain way, a court may choose to invalidate the.decision. However, a zoning official's particular political V. iew or general opinion on a given issue will generally not suffice to show bias. Courts recognize that public officials have opinions like everyone else and inevitably hold certain political views related to their public office. In fact, zoning officials are typically chosen to serve in their official capacity because they are expected to represent certain views about local land- use plan_ning and development. For instance, a zoning official may have campaigned for office on a pro- or antidevelopment stance. The courts tolerate this type of opinion because it is part of the political process. Moreover, official oPinions concerning land development generally represent community values and preferences that may implicate important public welfare concerns. Only when the opinion rises to a level of personal or self- interest or shows prejudgment of a specific situation is the right to an impartial decision violated. This might occur ifa zoning official made statements prior to or outside of the ordinary decision-making process that indicated a strong presentiment about the decision. Whether a particular statement would be strong enough evidence of bias is a fact-based determination for the courts. In one case, a Rhode Island court found sufficient evidence of bias when a zoning board member told opponents of a variance application prior to the hearing that "we are going to shove it down your throat." [Barbara Real{y Co. v. Zoning Board, 128 A.2d 342, 343 (R.I. 1957).] Ex Parte Contacts. Proof of ex parte contacts may also show that a zoning decision was tainted by bias, although the courts may tolerate this as a part of the political process. Ex parte contacts--discussions of a topic outside official proceedings-- frequently occur through lobbying efforts by various interest groups seeking to influence the decisions of public officials. In the context of quasi-legislative decisions, such as rezonings, the courts are especially reluctant to scrutinize ex parte lobbying efforts becauie of the separation of powers and First Amendment rights to influence the political process. However, when ex parte contacts are present in the context of quasi-judicial zoning decisions, such as variances and special use permits, courts will be more receptive to challenges on grounds of zoning bias. Ga. Code Ann. q~ 8%953 Outing code of ethics for public officers and employees). ~ Idaho Code ~ 67-6501 (prohibits participadon by members of governing boards or committees in matters in which there is an economic interest by.self or by relations). Idaho Code ~ 67-6506 (regulates the economic interest of members of the governing board, their relatives, employer, . and employees). Ind. Code Ann. ~ 36-74-223, 36-7-4-909 (regulating planning commission and board of adjustment conflicts). Md. Ann. Code art. 40A, ~3 3-101 (prohibits public officials from participating in matters in which they have a conflict of interest). Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 30, 3 2251 (1) (prohibits direct and indirect pecuniary interest). Mo. Ann. Stat. § 105.462 (prohibits participation by member where decision may result in direct financial gain or loss to him) Mont. Code Ann. ~ 2-2-125(b) (prohibits an officer or employee of local government from participating in official acts in which he has a direct and substantial financial interest). N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ~ 673.14 (regulating zoning board of adjustment, building code board, planning board, or historic district commission conflicts of interest). N.J. Star. Ann. § 40-55D-23(b) (regulating planning board conflicts of interest). N.M. Stat. Ann. § 3-10-5 (any member of a governing board having any possible financial interest in any policy or decision is required to disclose matters). N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law ~ 800-809 (prohibiting conflicts of interest of municipal officers and employees). Ore. Rev. Stat. c~ 244.120(1)(a) (requiring elected public officials 'other than legislators to announce potential conflicts prior to acting thereon). ILl. Gen. Laws § 36-14-4 (prohibits participation when there is a ~substantial conflict of interest'). S.C. Code Ann. ~) 8-1.3-410 (no municipal official or employee shall use his/her position for financial gain). Va. Code Ann. ~ 2.1-639.1 (state and local government conflict-of-interest act). Wis. Stat. Ann..~ 19.46 (no public official shall take official action on any matter in which he/she has a substantial financial interest).