Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/01/1997

Home

Page 4 -- March 10, i997 Z.B. ~tween R-1 and R-2 had Zoning Change -- Must city council create new map before adopting change? City of Russellville v. Banner Real Estate, 933 S. I~2d 803 (Arka~zsas) 1996 Banner Real Estate owned property in a commercial zone in the city of Russellville, Ark. The city wanted to rezone Banner's and other property in the commercial zone to "single family dwellings'.' (R-l). It petitioned the city Planning Commission. After holding public hearings, the commission recommended to the city council that the tract be rezoned to a combination of R-1 and R-2 areas. (R-2 zones allowed construction of apartments.) On the commission's recommended map, Banner would be entirely in an R~2 zone. In a new ordinance, the council adopted the commission's recommendations, but with one change: Following an oral motion, the council voted to move the line between the R-1 and R-2 areas. This change put Banner partly in an R-1 zone and partly in an R-2 zone. The council apparently modified the zones only orally, without drawing a new map or notifying the affected landowners. Banner sued the city. It claimed that in failing to draw a new map or notify it of the change from the commission's recommendation, the council violated its due process rights. Several city ordinances applied. Under one, if the city wanted to rezone a citizen's property, it had to create a map "showing the location of the affected property," send notice to the landowner and hold public hearings. Under another, if the city wanted to modify plans or regulations that already had been adopted, it had to either follow the procedures for adopting a comprehensive zoning plan or pass the changes by a majority city council vote. The court granted Banner judgment without a trial, finding it was entitled to a hearing to address the zoning change as modified by the council. The court said the city violated Banner's due process rights because it changed the commission's recommended plan without following proper procedures. The city appealed. ECIStON: Reversed and returned to the lower court. // The city did not have to hold another hearing before it voted to modify the /commission's recommended plan. / Under city ordinances, once the city notified citizens and held public hearings on a zoning change, a majority city council vote was enough to modify an adopted plan. The city met this requirement. Before the commission made its recommendation, it notified Banner and other affected landowners of the proposed change and held a public hearing. The council needed only a majority vote to modify the commission's recommendations. The modified plan was valid even though the city passed it orally, without drawing a new map. The city needed only show "the location of the affected property," which it did in the commission's map. It didn't matter that the Iine moved.