Opinion ID: 2009711
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Zoning treatises and journals

Text: ¶ 48 Leading zoning treatises support the notion that standard zoning practices contemplate permitted uses as of right that can be expanded upon by the administrative zoning function. Professor Mandelker writes: The drafters of the Standard Zoning Act clearly contemplated a zoning process in which the uses designated by the zoning ordinance were permitted as of right, but they also provided for an administrative zoning function. The Standard Act delegated this function to the board of adjustment. It authorized the board to grant variances from the zoning ordinance in cases of hardship, as defined in the Act, and to grant special exceptions authorized by provisions in the zoning ordinance. Many zoning ordinances use the term special or conditional use rather than special exception. . . .  Mandelker, supra, § 6.39, at 6-44 (emphasis added). ¶ 49 In Anderson's American Law of Zoning, the observation is also made that [m]ost ordinances impose a broad division of land uses, and, in addition, those ordinances then provide that specified uses may be established or maintained pursuant to a special permit. 3 Young, supra, § 21.01, at 693-94. [20] The Law of Municipal Corporations provides, [z]oning ordinances that rely on the conditional use mechanism retain the usual residential, commercial and industrial zones specifying the uses permitted in each zone, and, in addition, establish conditional uses for each zone. 8 Eugene McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations § 25.159 (3d ed.2000). ¶ 50 Current zoning journals also support the conclusion that the common, accepted zoning practice is to provide permitted uses as of right and then, in addition to permitted uses, the ordinance may provide for conditional uses. For example, in an article of Zoning Practice, the author discusses the relationship between permitted and conditional uses. See Gail Easley, Conditional Uses: Using Discretion, Hoping for Certainty, American Planning Association Zoning Practice, May 2006. The author writes, [t]he fundamental purpose of the zoning ordinance is to establish districts (zones) which have a common set of permissible uses and a common set of site design standards within each. Id. at 2. Permissible uses are `by-right' uses, i.e., the uses are named in the zoning ordinance and a property owner has the right to establish the use so long as it conforms to the standards and criteria of the zoning ordinance. Id. at 2-3. ¶ 51 The author then contrasts permitted uses with conditional uses and notes that there are often uses that would be welcome within the zoning district if additional standards could prevent them from undermining the purpose and intent of the district. . . . Business and industrial districts also benefit from uses other than those permitted by right. For example, day care centers and restaurants are welcome near employment centers. Id. at 3. ¶ 52 An article of Zoning News [21] cautions about heavy or exclusive reliance on conditional use permits. The author wrote: Some ordinances rely too much on special and/or conditional uses. Most land uses should be as-of-right, subject to compliance with clear and objective standards and criteria for that particular use category or zoning district. Discretionary approvals should be reserved for unique uses that defy regulations by objective standards. The routine employment of special uses, especially without (or with few) standards or criteria, opens up both individual zoning decisions and the zoning ordinance provision itself to constitutional challenges as being arbitrary and capricious. Even where such a challenge would not necessarily succeed, the uncertainty to landowners and citizens alike created by discretionary and/or standardless zoning review should be avoided. John B. Bredin, Common Problems with Zoning Ordinances, American Planning Association Zoning News, Nov. 2002, at 2.