Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/1997

Home

Page 2 - May 25, 1997 Z.B. Ordinance - Landowner says statute allowing neighbors to block rezoning is unconstitutional Cary v. City of Rapid City, 559 N. W2d 891 (South Dakota) 1997 Cary asked the city of Grand Rapids, S.D., to rezone property from general agricultural to medium-density residential. The city granted Cary's request and approved an ordinance. Before the ordinance went into effect, more than 40 percent of the neighboring property owners (who owned less than 18 percent of the surrounding property) filed a written protest to challenge the rezoning. According to a South Dakota statute, the" adoption of an ordinance could be challenged after the fact if at least 40 percent of the neighboring owners protested it. The statute didn't make any allowance for challenges made before an ordinance was adopted. The owners succeeded in blocking the new ordinance. Cary asked a court to force the city to enact the ordinance. She also asked the court to find the law didn't apply to her property and to declare the law unconstitutional. The court decided the law was constitutional and applied to Cary's property. Cary appealed. According to Cary, the statute was unconstitutional because it didn't outline the standards and guidelines for legislative action after property owners challenged an ordinance. Cary claimed the absence of these provisions resulted in an unlawful delegation of legislative power, and allowed a small number of property owners to prevent a landowner's use of property. DECISION: Reversed. The statute was unconstitutional, so its applicability to Cary's land didn't need to be determined. Cary's right to use her land for a legitimate purpose, on the other hand, was constitutionally protected. When a statute failed to provide minimum standards and guidelines for the application of a city's police powers, it violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. In this case, the statute did not provide any guidelines for protesting an ordinance. As long as a certain number of property owners filed a written protest, they could impose restrictions on neighboring property without reason or justification. By not "including any of these provisions, the statute basically bargained away the authority of legislative bodies to determine the public's best interest, and subjected the public's best interest to the whims of a few property owners. The legislature, not individual owners, had to determine what was best for the public. Accessory Use - Are daycare services considered part of church's function~ ' Shim v. Washington Township Planning Board, 689 A.2d 804 (New Jersey) 1997 The Trenton Seventh Day Adventist Church owned a IO-acre lot in Washington Township, N.J. The church wanted to construct a church building, a daycare facility, a religious sanctuary, a library and offices on the land. 51