Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 18 <br />process to apply to individual zoning amendments. Thus, the court <br />rejected the Residents' invitation to conclude otherwise. The court <br />concluded that the statute allows the use of the referendum process for <br />voters to repeal a city's zoning regulations in their entirety or to <br />determine whether the city should initially adopt zoning regulations, but <br />does not allow it for the amendment of individual zoning determinations. <br />In so holding, the court looked to the statutory language, finding that <br />§ 211.015(a)(2) was modified by the legislature which placed the word <br />"initial" before "adoption of zoning regulations." The court found that by <br />including the word "initial" in front of the phrase "adoption of zoning <br />regulations," the legislature was talking about a particular set of zoning <br />regulations enacted when none previously existed or the first ones enacted <br />by cities as part of their initial zoning efforts, not about zoning regula- <br />tions in general as contemplated in § 211.002. <br />The court also rejected the Residents' policy arguments for why the <br />initiative and referenda process should apply to zoning amendments. The <br />court pointed to policy reasons for not having it so apply: the necessity <br />for continuity and expertise in zoning; and the required careful study, ac- <br />cumulation of masses of detailed infoiivation, and need for professional <br />advice when evaluating zoning ordinances. <br />Accordingly, the court rejected the Residents' writ, finding the <br />Residents failed to show that the City had a duty under the City Charter <br />and Local .Government Code to apply the initiative and referendum pro- <br />cess to zoning reclassifications. <br />See also: City of Canyon v. Fehr, 121 S.W.3d 899 (Tex. App. Amarillo <br />2003). <br />ecisi ns eviewable—Property <br />own - r seeks juicial or <br />a• ministrative mandamus review <br />of city zoning text amendment <br />City argues text amendment was a legislative <br />act and not a zoning act subject to such <br />review <br />Citation: Mayor and Council of Rockville v. Pumphrey, 2014 WL <br />3752100 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2014) <br />MARYLAND (07/31/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether <br />enactment of a text amendment to a city zoning ordinance was a "zoning <br />action" subject to statutory judicial review or administrative mandamus <br />review. <br />2014 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />