Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006

Home

posed use is consistent with a comprehensive plan, the consistency requirement does not mean the landowner is presumptively entided to the planned use. In goard of Count' Cornmissione~ of 8revord County v. Snyder, 6a7 So. 2d 469 hensive plan's ~m land-use map. ~e prope~ consistent with the plan. In C]tizens for Mount vernon v. Ci~ of Mount Vemon, t33 Wn.=d 86z, 947 P.=d t;m8 (~997), the Washington Supreme Court heid that when preexistin§ zon- ing ~eguiations expda[tty prohibit ~ses allowed in the comprehensive plan, the more specific preexistin[ zoning regulations govern the land- use decision. This provides an incentive for communities to update their ordinances within & reasonable period of time following the enactment of s comprehensive ptan. Issues may arise when a community has adopted a new comprehensive plan, but has not yet updated its ordinances to be consistent with the plan. owners filed an application to rezone oho-half acre of property to a zoning ctassihcat[on that would allow the construction of s5 residential units per acre. The rezoning was consistent with the residential use classification in ~e compre- hensive plan. The developer indicated that he only intended to buiid five at six units. A number of citizens opposed the request. The county denied the rezoning without stating a reason. The developer challenged the de,iai on the basis that the rezoning was consistent with the county's comprehensive plan. The court deter- mined that local government should have the discretion to decide that the maximum deve(op- merit density shou(d not be allowed provided that the §ovemmental body approves some development that is consistent with the plan and the government's decision is supported by sub- limited than the future use contemplated by the by the court in Snyder. a landowner seek[n~ to rezone propert~ has the burden of proving the plan and complies with ail the procedural den then shifts to the community to demonstrate lion accomplishes a Legitimate public purpose. Associates. tSt Wn.ad z79.87 R3d ti76 {2oo4). the Washington Supreme Court examined the This issue of Z~ning Practice begins to examine some of the case Law developed nationaltv as courts address issues related to consistency determinations, The cases highlighted are intended as a guide to help planners think about such determinations. However, one must exer- cise caution when §eneratizing the meaning of consistency. While the concept that certain . actions should be consistent with a comprehen- sive plan is well accepted in the field of plan- ning, variations in state enabling taws and judi- cial precedent make it difficult to develop univer- sally acceptable rules to ~uide consistency determinations. AS reco§nized by the Nebraska Supreme Court, "To determine whether an ordi- nance compiles with a comprehensive plan is not a mechanical test;" see Gigerv. Omaha, 232 Neb. 676; 44z N.W. ad tga {~989). Nonetheless, the evolving jurisprudence reported above {s instructive. Courts give deference to local deter- minations of consistency, though not always. As a resutL courts are constantly he[pin~ to re,ne what is meant by consistency and the role of comprehensive planning. Digital copies of California's general plan ~uideiines and select zoning/planning consis- tency matdces are available to Zoning Practice subscribers by contacting Michael Oavidson, editor, Zoning Practice, at the American Planning Association, :aa South Michigan Avenue, Suite t6oo, Chicago, IL 6o6o3, or by sendin~ an e-mail to mdav~dson@p(anning.o~. ZONING; ...... .~- 11.05