Agenda Packets - 1982/09/27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

tae )L',11C }IQl:.4ie. The CO'urt Stated, ":?va;, '.r:•a.'e tha reasonaLleress of a zoning ordinance is de'aaL;b;.e, or 4ore there ara conflicting opinions ns LO C:,_ ,.e; i.rabi?. l.tV of the restrictions it imposes i:i pat :'unction of the courts to inter- fere L;;o lcc:islative discretion on such issues," :he i,tisOCii,L' ,•ued ' : is rule of wo:' �=, ti:a� t: law does not apply Lo SpeC> al sc, 4,cr:cit :;w S>prame CcurL cited the Z ylka case and said, "ile adc;pted tL'a ru10 that where a special use conform- ing wieh the zoning ordinance is requested, a city council's denial of a special use permit to a single land owner is proved prima facie,arbitrary and un- reasonable if it is shown'Lhat the council failed to support its action by written findings of substantial evidence showing the use inpermissible under the Permit standards o_ the ordinance." The ssociation in this case asked the Supreme Court to rule that zoning amendments be reviewed under a like standard and suggest that the only distinction batsaeen special use permits and the rezon- ing is the label "rezoning". The Supreme Court did not agree and said as follows: "While an arendment of the zoning ordinance can permit particular property to be used in a manner formerly forbidden by the: ordinance, 'a special use provision merely pormits property, within the discretion of the governing body, to be used in a manner expressly authorizud by Lie ordinance'. In passing a zoning or rezoning ord`_nanee, a city council is required to maize a legislative judgment that a certain zoning classification"";,il 'promote tho public health, safety, morals and l;encral welfare.' In granting or denying a speciril u:u: ,;o ;,:it, a city council is not altering the legislative judgment as to the zoning classification, Rather, it has 6he function, adjudicative in nature, of applying specific use standards set by the zoning ordinance to a particular individual use and must be held strictly to those standards. "The proposed 'nigh density use of the subject land was not in conforniL'y with existing zoning classifications and therefore could not have L-een accomplished through a special use permit -Me use could be permitted only thrqugh amerdme:a of the zoning ordinance. This was not a case whom the council was enaf.;led to obtain a lesser standard of judicial scrutiny than would otherwise be applied sis:ply by choosing to label its action 'rezoning'. An amendment of Lil.: zoning ordinance was required and once was pas:%c:d. No other label would have applied to the council's actio:.. S9:e council's amendment of the ordinance, under o.::; previo.:s ;holdings, involved a legislative judgment and as such immust :;a reviewed under the narrow scope of judicial review idled•"