COM 0219.006 2000-2002 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

07/13/01. 08:57 FA% 8089818822 CORP COtT1VSEL ~ 004 , " , ' Page 3 of 4 i arr;rendn9ents to be disapproved; (3 acres), and that where spot zoning challenges are generally rejected (11 acres). Ibid at §5.15. Zn i,z~z Yip Kep, supra, the Council ha,d downzoned the plaintiffs parcel from "hiigh T)erisity'° to 'Pl.o~vv I~nsity" ap ~ Noting that the surroundia~ area con a zuixture of apae~aent and ptr~blic facility uses, and noting the presaan~ption in favor of the ordinance validity, the court upheld tl~ action finding it avt to be ire®nsistent with the classification of the surrounding a Likewise; in L ~e o, f 'the supra, the challenged a ent project was consistent with ofiher zoning in the area.. ' l'€ere, the proposed rezoning involves fihe change of use, but only of permitted lot size. 'T'hus, while an inconsistency with the surrounding Area is created, that inconsistency does not extend to the activities to be permitted on the land.. RThile there ffiay be a. suspicion that the real intent of this proposal. is to creme upscale residential properties, having little or nothing to do with agriculture, that would be prohibited by the Std Land Use Law iua any event_ I do not, therefore believe, that this ordinance, should it become law, w®u1d be struck dvwrt as • having "spot zoning," ~ i . ITZ. Conte 94/h~ere a zoning ordinance autliorizes a p use if the landowner entet°s into a covet to restrict the use in certain:wa~s, wha# i'.s termed "s~antr~t zoning" occurs. Such bargaining with the police power is generally foua~d to be unlawful. Aradersor~ sa~pPa at §9.21, and any proffiises made pursusat to such zonia~g actions unenforceable. C~Yinn vs step Irrve~or~s, 499 PA. 498,. 453 A2'd. 1385 (1982). , Thus, in Z'imr~er~ vs County o, f ~Peoac~, 33 Ill. App. 3d 612, 3381~2c1.145 (1975), a landowner seeking rezoning to' constrtaet a country and. western dance hail, to file a eov~ant which promised among other thin8s, that the property would not be used for any other permitted business use. Findang t}~t to permit each citizen to be governed by legislation based on the best deal that he can make with the county would not be consistent with the notion. that the law should affect alike all vvhho are similarly situated, flee Court strlack down the ordinance. ; The condition which this bill attempts to impose upon fzature construction of so-called "ohaaa" housing, imposes a restriction on this property z~ot placed upon siffiilar properties, and does so without any findings to the necessity to do so. In so doing, this Council would, by use of privA.te res~irtive covenants; improperly deprive future councils of the right to exercise their legislative authority to regulate the zoning of this property. Orton vs, ~dtkinso~, 228 G~ 733, 187 SE 2d 825 (1972) Persuasive arg~.~nnents havc~'been m that the unrestricted use of the "ohanna" process to evade density restriction is i serious problem The proper approach to that probleffi is to determine where this sitaation exists, and to deal with it on the basis of law of general applicability, not by hoc agr~Rnen$ wlth inciividual~ property owners. , i ' i httls:~hv~v~r_co_hacwaii~i.uslec~ cou~eU99opani®a3.hrna 7/6/OI