Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/04/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2013 1 Volume 7 1 Issue 3 wrong." Rather, the court found that the caselaw was clear that "an agreement to circumvent applicable zoning laws is invalid and unenforceable." In other words, an agreement is ultra vires when it contractually exempts settling parties from ordinances and regulations that apply to everyone else and would, except for the agreement, apply to the settling parties. Here, the court found that the City, under the Settlement Agreement, did, in fact, contract away its right to exercise its police power in the future because under the Settlement Agreement the City and the Billboard Companies "circum- vent[ed] the general ban on municipal code alterations to existing off -site signs." Accordingly, the Settlement Agreement was ultra vires (i.e., "beyond the pow- ers") and void, concluded the court. Summit had argued that because the Settlement Agreement was unlawful, the permits issued to the Billboard Companies pursuant to the Settlement Agree- ment —which could not have been issued if the City had enforced the 2002 sign ban against the Billboard Companies —must, like the Settlement Agreement, be void. The appellate court agreed. It held that, "[i]n short, permits issued in contravention of municipal ordinances are invalid." See also: Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Com., 17 Cal. 3d 785, 132 Cal. Rptr. 386, 553 P.2d 546 (1976). See also: Trancas Property Owners Assn. v. City of Malibu, 138 Cal. App. 4th 172, 41 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200 (2d Dist. 2006). Case Note: The Billboard Companies had argued for equitable estoppel against the City's revocation of the permits issued under the Settlement Agreement. In other words, they argued that they had relied in good faith on the City's issuance of permits and made expenditures on new signs that should not now be revoked. The court rejected that argument. It noted that equitable estoppel is available against the government "in only `the most extraordinary case where the injustice is great and the precedent set by the estoppel is narrow.' " Spot Zoning — County adopts special zoning district and regulations prohibiting mining in district Mining company alleges adoption of district and regulations constitutes illegal reverse spot zoning Citation: Helena Sand and Gravel, Inc. v. Lewis and Clark County Planning and Zoning Com'n, 2012 MT 272, 2012 WL 5986785 (Mont. 2012) MONTANA (11/30/12) —This case addressed the issue of whether a county's adoption of a zoning pattern and regulations prohibiting mining in a special district constituted illegal reverse spot zoning. The case discusses the framework that courts use in evaluating whether a county has engaged in illegal spot zoning. The Background /Facts: Helena Sand and Gravel, Inc. ( "HSG ") owned ap- © 2013 Thomson Reuters 9