Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/07/2013

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2013 I Volume 7 I Issue 19 proper exercise of police power." Without a legislative bypass provi- sion, explained the court, "a small number of agricultural or forest land- owners, or even a single landowner, would be granted absolute discre- tion to make the ultimate determination concerning the public's best interests with no opportunity for review." Here, not only did the statute lack a provision allowing a legislative body to take action notwithstand- ing the protest, it actually prohibited the board of county commissioners from even proposing an alternative zoning resolution for a period of one year. Accordingly, the court concluded that the protest provision at issue represented an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power. Having found the protest provision utilized by the Landowners was unconstitutional and thereby ineffective, the court upheld the Commis- sioners' adoption of the North Lolo Rural Special Zoning District. See also: Bacus v. Lake County, 138 Mont. 69, 354 P.2d 1056 (1960). See also: Shannon v. City of Forsyth, 205 Mont. 111, 666 P.2d 750 (1983). See also: Cary v. City of Rapid City, 1997 SD 18, 559 N. W.2d 891 (S.D. 1997). Case Note: The court also affirmed the district court's conclusion that the protest provi- sion was severable from the rest of the statute—§ 76-2-205, MCA. Constitutionality of Zoning Ordinances City ordinances prohibit any and all business and commercial uses Adult entertainment business owner contends ordinances violate the First Amendment Citation: Peterson v. City of Florence, Minn., 2013 WL 4259817 (8th Cir. 2013) The Eighth Circuit has jurisdiction over Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota. EIGHTH CIRCUIT (MINNESOTA) (08/16/13)—This case ad- ©2013 Thomson Reuters 5