Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/02/1997

Home

.. . .~ Z.B. October 25, 1997 - Page 5 found that "outside storage or activity" was limited to storage related activities. According to the city council, interpreting the ordinance to mean that any outside activity could be a conditional use would be inconsistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance. The developer appealed to court again. It offered the court evidence, which had not been presented to the city council at its hearing. The court refused to consider the evidence and upheld the city council's decision. The developer appealed again. It argued t~e court should have deferred to the zoning officer's interpretation of "outside activity" because the city council empowered the zoning officer to enforce the zoning ordinance. DECISION: Affirmed. The court properly deferred to the city council's interpretation of "outside activity." Courts generally gave considerable weight to the interpretation of an ordinance by the official charged with administering it, but they could also defer to an administrative body's interpretation if it wasn't contrary to the plain language of the ordinance. Although the zoning officer had previously allowed as conditional uses activities other than storage activities, the city council had never addressed the issue or ratified the zoning officer's past decisions concerning the meaning of the language. In such a case, the court could properly give substantial deference to the city council's interpretation rather than that of the zoning officer, because the council was presumed to have a greater knowledge of the interrelationships among the several provisions of the zoning ordinance and the philosophy and policy behind the ordinance's enactment. The court properly refused to consider the developer's additional evidence. Generally, courts will not consider evidence not provided at an administrative hearing. see also: Downtown Neighborhoods Association v. City of Albuquerque, 783 P.2d 962 (1989). High Ridge Hinkle Joint Venture v. City of Albuquerque, 888 P.2 475 (1994). 3</ Nonconforming Use - New owner says 'grandfather' clause allows him to operate salvage yard Poole v. Berkeley County Planning Commission, 488 S.E.2d 349 (West Virginia) 1997 Smith owned a salvage yard in Berkeley County, W.Va. He operated the business under a license issued by the state Division of Highways. State law gave county planning commissions the power to regulate salvage yards. In 1984, the Berkeley County Planning Commission passed an ordinance stating a county permit was needed to operate a salvage yard in the county. The commission would not issue a permit unless the applicant complied with the county land development laws. Smith's operation of the salvage yard was not affected because it predated the ordinance.