Title: TERRY v. BISHOP

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

TERRY v. BISHOP  TERRY v. BISHOP 2007 OK 29 158 P.3d 1067 Case Number: 102284 Decided: 05/08/2007 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA PATRICIA TERRY, JODI D. ILES, JAMES MICHAEL ILES, SUSAN CONNER FRAKA, RICK REYNOLDS, ED LUNDERBLADE, MARILYN LUNDERBLADE, BETH A. TIEFENAAER, RONALD G. TIEFENAAER, and TIM LAIRD, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. SHERRY BISHOP, City Clerk; and CITY OF OWASSO, OKLAHOMA, a municipal corporation, Defendants/Appellees, and FOUR POINTS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC, Intervenor/Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TULSA COUNTY Honorable Deborah C. Shallcross, Trial Judge ¶0 The appellee, the City of Owasso (City), changed the zoning of a parcel of real property to allow the development of a new hospital and medical campus on the property. Subsequently, the appellants, (Petitioners) circulated an initiative petition seeking to rezone the property to a single family residential district for a period of ten years. The Petitioners delivered the initiative petition to the City Clerk for verification and placement on the ballot. The City Clerk referred the matter to the City Attorney who determined that the petition was legally insufficient. The City Clerk refused to pursue the matter any further. The Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus in the trial court to direct the City Clerk to certify the sufficiency of the petition. The trial judge, the Honorable Deborah Shallcross, denied the writ. The Petitioners appealed and we retained the cause. We hold that the petition is legally insufficient because it violates art. 5, §7, of the Oklahoma Constitution. TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. Louis Levy, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Plaintiffs/Appellants. Roy D. Johnson, Janie H. Van Valkenburgh, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Defendants/Appellees. Charles E. Norman, David R. Ross, Tulsa, Oklahoma, for Intervenors. KAUGER, J.: ¶1 The determinative issue presented is whether the initiative petition to rezone previously zoned property is legally sufficient to be submitted to the electorate. STIPULATED ¶2 On July 7, 2004, an application was filed with the appellee, the City of Owasso (City), to change the zoning of 66.4 acres of real property owned by the intervenor appellee, Four Points Development Company (landowner). The application proposed changing the zoning of the property from "single family residential" to "office medium intensity," to build a Medical Complex consisting of a hospital, medical and general offices, and senior living facilities. ¶3 After notices were published and public hearings were held, the Planning Commission voted unanimously on August 9, 2004, to recommend approval of the application to rezone -- with some conditions regarding the proposed development. On August 17, 2004, the City Council also unanimously voted to approve the rezoning application and proposed development as revised. On September 7, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 793 which changed the zoning of the property to "office medium intensity." ¶4 On October 8, 2004, the appellants (Petitioners), filed an initiative petition in the office of the Owasso City Clerk (City Clerk) seeking a vote of the City electorate to rezone the property to "single family residential" and to prohibit any subsequent rezoning of the property for a period of ten years. On October 11, 2004, the Planning Commission and on October 19, 2004, the City Council, respectively, approved the final plat and site plan of the property for the Medical Complex. The Plat of the Owasso Medical Campus, a subdivision within the City of Owasso, was recorded on March 7, 2005. ¶5 On December 29, 2004, the Petitioners presented the City Clerk with thirty-two packets of Initiative Petitions including signatures in excess of the 25% required by ¶6 That same day, the Petitioners filed a petition for a writ of mandamus in the District Court of Tulsa County. The writ sought to order the City Clerk to fulfill the duties imposed by ¶7 On April 26, 2005, the Petitioners filed a motion for summary judgment. The parties agreed that the number of signatures and dates of filing met the statutory requirements of an initiative petition, but disputed whether the initiative process could be utilized to rezone a specific parcel of real property and whether the initiative petition was otherwise legally sufficient. A hearing was held on May 13, 2005, and the trial court, in an order filed June 1, 2005, determined that: 1) zoning is not a proper subject for challenge by initiative petition; 2) even if it were, the proposed ordinance was not of general application; and 3) it impermissibly attempted to enjoin the City Council from rezoning the subject property for a period of ten years. We retained the cause on August 5, 2005; ¶8 THE PETITION IS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE IT SEEKS TO UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BIND THE CITY FROM EXERCISING ITS LEGISLATIVE POWER TO REZONE. ¶9 The Oklahoma Constitution, art. 5, §§1 ¶10 The City contends that the proposed ten year restriction of the proposed ordinance is in direct conflict with the legislative power of the City Council to amend or repeal, at any time, any ordinance, including those enacted by the initiative petition. The Petitioners deny that the petition is legally insufficient. ¶11 In Granger v. City of Tulsa, ¶12 The Court determined that there was no express provision in the Oklahoma Constitution prohibiting a municipal legislative body from repealing or amending measures initiated by the people of the municipality. After discussing the rights of the people of a municipality and the people of the State to initiate measures, the Granger Court concluded that repeal by the people of Tulsa is analogous to repeal of a legislative measure by the people of the State. The Court stated: . . .[L]aws proposed and enacted by the people of Tulsa under the initiative provisions of the Constitution and the charter of the city of Tulsa are subject to the same constitutional limitations as are other statutes, and may be amended or repealed by the legislative body of the city at will. Our decision in Granger is consistent with the holding in State v. Coyle, There is nothing in our Constitution which prohibits the Legislature from repealing or modifying the acts of its predecessors or its own. It is fundamental that the Legislature cannot pass an irrepealable law. ¶13 The City Council of Owasso derives its power to legislate under The reservation of the powers of the initiative and referendum in this article shall not deprive the Legislature of the right to repeal any law, propose or pass any measure, which may be consistent with the Constitution of the State and the Constitution of the United States. The rationale of Granger, supra, is applicable to these facts. If an initiative is subject to the same limitations as other statutes, and a statute may be amended or repealed by a legislative body at will, then an initiative petition may not preclude the Owasso City Council from rezoning the property for a period of ten years. ¶15 Nor do we find the ten year prohibition severable. Offending provisions of an initiative are not severable if they are fundamental to the petition. CONCLUSION ¶16 The rights of the initiative and referendum are precious, and this Court is zealous to preserve them to the fullest measure of the spirit and the letter of the law. TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED. WINCHESTER, C.J., EDMONDSON, V.C.J., HARGRAVE, OPALA, KAUGER, WATT, JJ., concur. LAVENDER, J., concurs in result. COLBERT, J., disqualified. TAYLOR, J., concurring specially: I would additionally affirm the trial court's order that the power to initiate legislation by initiative petition is not applicable to the zoning or rezoning of real property. The initiative petition process would be in conflict with the full compliance and protection of zoning laws and due process rights of private property owners. FOOT