Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/15/2015

Home

August 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin The Dockters sought judicial review of the County Commissioners' decision. They argued that the decision to rezone the land constituted impermissible spot zoning. Specifically, they argued that characteristics of spot zoning were established in this case because: the rezoned industrial land was different from prevailing agricultural uses in the area; the rezoned land constituted a small geographical area compared to the surrounding 22,241 acres of land zoned for agricultural use in the Township; the rezoned land benefitted one owner and not the greater community; and the rezoned use was inconsistent with Burleigh County's comprehensive land use plan. The district court rejected the Dockters' arguments, ruling that the Dockters had failed to establish the County Commissioners' decision constituted impermissible spot zoning. The Dockters appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The Supreme Court of North Dakota also held that the County Com- missioners' decision to rezone Pahlke's Property from agricultural use to industrial use did not constitute impermissible sport zoning. In so holding, the court explained that spot zoning occurs "when an individual lot is singled out for discriminatory or different treatment than that accorded surrounding property of a similar character and is .beyond the authority of a zoning entity, absent a clear showing of a reasonable basis for different treatment." The court further explained that character- istics of "spot zoning" include where: (1) the use is different from the prevailing use of the area; (2) the area rezoned is small; and (3) the clas- sification benefits a particular landowner. The court said that in evaluat- ing whether a rezoning is an impermissible spot zoning, it looks to whether the rezoning is solely for the benefit of a landowner or "whether it is pursuant to a comprehensive plan for the general welfare of the community." Here, the court found that although Pahlke may individually benefit from the zoning change, there was evidence the County Commissioners' decision benefited Burleigh County as a whole with regard to bolstering economic development. The court found that the record supported a finding that the rezone would provide economic benefits to the com- munity as a whole for the general welfare of the community, "which is a characteristic that militates against a claim of impermissible spot zoning." Moreover, the court found the fact that Pahlke's 311 acres were proposed to be divided into five- to 10 -acre lots also militated against a claim that the rezoning change involved an individual lot singled out for discrimination, or different treatment. In response to the Dockters' argument that the County Commission- ers' decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, because it was inconsistent with a comprehensive County land use plan, the court 6 © 2015 Thomson Reuters