Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/09/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 17 have the authority to adjudicate constitutional claims. In other words, held the court: "[w]here the interpretation of the ordinance is not at issue, the ordinance prohibits the property owner's intended use, and the prop- erty owner is claiming a common law vested right to such a nonconform- ing use, the only claim is a constitutional one. In such a case, plaintiffs are not required to first exhaust the procedures before the board of adjustment." Here, the court found that the Owners had specifically alleged that the meaning of the UDO was not in dispute and that their desired use was not allowed under the ordinance. Therefore, the court concluded that the Owners were not required to exhaust administrative remedies before the County Board of Adjustment in order to bring the present civil action. Accordingly, the court further concluded that the trial court had erred in dismissing the Owners' vested rights claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. See also: Town of Hillsborough v. Smith, 276N.C. 48, 170 S.E.2d 904, 49 A.L.R.3d 1 (1969). Case Nate: The Comity Defendants had also contended that the Owners' had failed to suf- ficientlyplead their vested rights claim. The Court of Appeals disagreed. Referendum/Validity of Zoning 'egulations—Citizen referendum rescinds city council resolution authorizing interlocal agreement concernin • zoninand planning Other citizens challenge validity of referendum, saying resolution was administrative and therefore could not be rescinded by referendum Citation: Phillips v. City of Whitefish, 2014 MT 186, 2014 WL 3430244 (Mont. 2014) MONTANA (07/14/14)—This case addressed the validity of a referen- dum by city voters to rescind a city council resolution authorizing the city to enter into an amended interlocal agreement with the county concerning 2014 Thomson Reuters 9