Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/07/2006

Home

------- z.B. November 10, 2006-Page 7 family median income. FBCC applied to have its property rezoned. The county board approved FBCC's rezoning application. Renkey, who lived nearby, claimed that the county had violated the zoning ordinance by approving the rezoning of a portion of the subject property from "R-5" to "C-R" without that portion first being zoned "C-3." The ordinance language Renkey pointed to appeared before the regula- tions set forth in the applicable ordinance. The county argued that the lan- guage, as well as the entire paragraph in which it appeared, was a general statement of intent, or a preamble, an~ was therefore not a binding part of the ordinance. Renkey sued, and the court ruled in favor of the county. Renkey appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The county violated the ordinance. The issue was whether certain language in the fIrst paragraph of ordinance was part of a preamble or an operative component of the ordinance. That paragraph stated that: "The purpose of the 'C-R' classifIcation [was] to encourage medium density mixed use development; to recognize existing commercial rights; and to provide tapering of heights between higher density office development and lower density residential uses. The district [was] de- signed for use in the vicinity of the metrorail stations and, to be eligible for the classification, a site shall be located within an area designated 'medium density mixed use' and zoned 'C-3. '" The next paragraph provided that "[t]he following regulations shall apply to all 'C-R' Districts." The remainder listed various regulations for a "C_R" district, such as permitted uses and bulk regulations. Only the initial portion of that paragraph was akin to a preamble in that it stated the purpose of the "C-R" zoning classifIcation and explained that the classifIcation "[was] designed for use in the vicinity of the metrorail stations." However, the remainder of the fIrst paragraph set out mandatory eligibility criteria for the "C- R" classillcation: "a site shall be located within an area desig- nated 'medium density mixed use' and zoned 'C-3.''' In clear, unambiguous language, the ordinance required that a site fIrst be zoned "C-3" before it could be rezoned "C-R," so it served an essential gate- keeping function in the application of the ordinance. see also: Eagle Harbor, UC v. Isle of Wight County, 628 S.E.2d 298 (2006). Over 1,000 of the most important zoning cases at your fingertips ! ZONING LAW LffiRARY =' OneD order now at www.quinlan.comlcds @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 71