Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2012

Home

October 10, 2011 1Volume 51 No. 19 Zoning Bulletin City code enforcement officer established noncompliance and that an individual who appealed a citation bore the burden of proving that the City incorrectly issued it. The court said that determining what process is due in a particu- lar case requires consideration of three factors: (1) the private inter- est that will be affected by the official action; (2) the risk of errone- ous deprivation of such interest though the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute safeguards; and (3) the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail. Weighing these three factors here, the court found: "demonstrates that holding the City to its burden of proof [of proving Daily vio- lated the City code] was constitutionally required in this case." Here, "Daily ha[d] a significant private interest in avoiding the assessment of a fine," said the court. "On the other hand, the City ha[d] an in- terest in ensuring that its residents compl[ied] with its zoning ordi- nances and municipal code." In this case, the court found it clear that "properly allocating the burden of proof [to the City] would reduce the risk of erroneously depriving individuals of protected property interests without placing substantial fiscal or administrative burdens on the City." Because the hearing examiner did not hold the City to its burden of proof (having to prove Daily violated City zoning or- dinances), the court concluded that the City's administrative appeals process deprived Daily. of a protected property interest without due process of law. See also: Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 96 S. Ct. 893, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1976). See also: City of Pierre v. Blaekwe11 2001 SD 127, 635 N. W.2d 581 (S.D. 2001). Case Note: Daily had also argued that the City violated his pro- cedural due process rights by issuing multiple citations for a sin- gle violation of its zoning ordinances and municipal code. As a matter of policy, the City repeatedly cited, individuals for viola- tions until they finally complied with its zoning ordinances. The court found that while this practice was not a "technical viola- tion of Daily's procedural due process rights," it was a "relevant consideration in evaluating the fairness of the City's administra- tive appeals process." 4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters