Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

September 25, 2015 I Volume 9 1 Issue 18 Zoning Bulletin that the power to sever included the power to modify, nor was it clear whether what remained of an ordinance after severance could serve as a standalone law if modifications or additions were necessary. In other words, the Seventh Circuit found that the ability of a court to do more than excise the unconstitutional portions of the ordinance did not ap- pear to be settled in Wisconsin. While the case presented a federal is- sue as to the constitutionality of the 2006 ordinance, the issues of sev- erance and of whether remaining provision of the ordinance could stand alone were state law questions, found the court. Thus, the court held that the federal district court should have relinquished its jurisdiction over those supplemental state claims and dismissed thein without prejudice. See also: Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 111 S. Ct. 2456, 115 L. Ed. 2d 504 (1991). See also: Cantwell v. State of Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 60 S. Ct. 900, 84 L. Ed. 1213, 128 A.L.R. 1352 (1940). Validity of Zoning Ordinance— Amendment to county's overlay district zoning ordinance exempts a certain class of property owners from the ordinance Nonexempt property owner challenges amendment as unconstitutional special legislation Citation: Dowd Grain Company, Inc. v. County of Sarpy, 291 Neb. 620, 867 N.. W.2d 599 (2015) NEBRASKA. (08/14/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether an amended overlay district zoning ordinance imposing design require- ments for new development, which exempted a certain class of prop- erty owners from the ordinance, was an unconstitutional special law (under the Nebraska Constitution). The Background/Facts: In March 2004, the Sarpy County Board of Commissioners (the "Board") adopted an overlay district zoning ordinance. In 2007, the Board amended the overlay ordinance to exempt properties platted before the effective date of the original (2004) 8 © 2015 Thomson Reuters