Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004

Home

October 10, 2004 -- Page 7 fell under the consent judgment. However, the township disagreed. Inverness sued, and the court ruled in the toyvnsh/p's favor. It found the Consent judgment inappropriately bound future township boards and was thus against public policy. Inverness appealed. DECISION: The consent judgment constituted a legislative act that impermissibly con- tracted away the powers of a future governing body. Under local law, zoning ordinances had to be based upon a master plan serving as a general guide to future development. Because of this, the adoption of a master plan was tantamount to a legisl'ative act. The precise terms of the consent judgment made it clear, the intent of the agreement was legislative in'nature. Paragraph 10 of the judgment dictated the amendment of the master plan to provide for a new manufactured home commu-. nity development, and paragraph 12 provided that a ~ture use consistent with the master plan was automatically deemed reasonable. The judgment's language that 1Lmited futUre boards from making determina- tions as to what was reasonable or not deprived future boards of the discretion that public policy demanded. Consequently, the consent judgment was illegal. see also: Ci~ of Esse.wille v. Carrollton Concrete Mi,,: Inc., 673 N. W. 2d $]5 (,~005). see also: Green Oak Township v. Mun.~el, 661 N. W. 2d 243 (2003). Appeal -- Local law states landowners have 90 days to challenge new ordinances Permittee claims rule is unfair and misapplied Citation: Trctvis v. Coun~ of Santa Cruz, supreme Court of California, S109597 (2004) CALIFORNIA (07/29/04) --=-- Travis was granted a permit to construct a second dwelling on his residential proPerty. Under county ordinance, "affordable second dwelling units" were the only second dwellings that could be built. These units restricted the income of tenants and the rent that could be charged. Travis filed an administrative appeal against the occupancy and rent re- strictions. His appeal was denied. Travis sued, arguing the restrictions were illegal. The court found in favor of r. he county, finding Travis had waited too long to challenge the ordinance. Un'der stare law, landowners had only 90 days ro challenge an ordinance for "general" illegality. After the 90 days had passed, they could only challenge the ordinance if [r was being applied to them in a different way than those similarly situated. Thi.3 rule w'.',~s intended to provide certainty to local government en[orcemenr. Tra,,'is appealed, ar~ztun~ this rule was oemg rm>apptJ, e~x to his situation. DE CISIO~': Reversed. ~: 2C/;4 .~mr~lan *'J~lis,nmq ~rouo..-'nv :eproductlorl :s 9ronlbtJed. For more inforrna[ion 9iease.:all '61T~ 542-00,z8. 147