Opinion ID: 2452060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Adoption by reference

Text: The City argues the presence or absence of the zoning map at the meeting at which the Ordinance was passed was not material because the map was attached to the body of the regulation which was adopted by reference. This argument hinges on an alternative procedure for promulgating zoning ordinances set out in Ark.Code Ann. §§ 14-55-206 and -207 (1987) in relevant part as follows: XX-XX-XXX. Publishing or posting requirements. (a)(1)(A) All bylaws or ordinances of a general or permanent nature and all those imposing any fine, penalty, or forfeiture shall be published in some newspaper of general circulation in the corporation.       (b) As to ordinances establishing rules and regulations for zoning, construction of buildings, ..., where such rules and regulations have been printed as a code in book form, the code or provisions thereof may be published by the municipality by reference to title of the code without further publication or posting thereof. However, not less than three (3) copies of the code shall be filed for use ana examination Dy tne pumic in tne office of the city clerk or recorder of the municipality subsequent to the adoption thereof.       § 14-55-207: Adoption of technical codes by reference. (a) Every municipality in the State of Arkansas is authorized by the passage of a municipal ordinance to adopt by reference technical codes, regulations, or standards, without setting forth the provisions of the code or parts thereof, if three (3) copies of the code, or the pertinent parts thereof, and any related documents are filed in the office of the clerk of the municipality for inspection and view by the public prior to passage of the ordinance. (b) The term technical codes shall include any building, zoning, health, electrical, or plumbing codes, and the term regulations shall include any criminal code of the State of Arkansas. (c) It shall be the duty of the municipality to give a notice to the public, by publication in a paper of general circulation within the municipality, stating that copies of the code, or the pertinent parts thereof, and the related documents are open to public examination prior to the passage of the ordinance adopting the code. A municipality thus may pass by ordinance a comprehensive zoning code by reference to the title of that code only. The law requires that the code be in book form and the book with relevant related materials be available to the public prior to the passage of the ordinance adopting the code. The Planning Commission for the City held a public hearing on the regulations. Notice was issued by the Planning Commission and presumably published prior to the meeting (the record does not establish when it was published). It reads as follows: The City of Benton will hold a Public Hearing at 6:00 p.m. on February 27th, 1989, prior to the Council Meeting at the Tyndall Park's Recreational Building for the purpose of discussing the proposed new preliminary Zoning Ordinance. Clearly there is not a statement that copies of a regulation or an ordinance and related documents (particularly the disputed map) are available for public examination. This notice does not comply with the statutory procedure by informing the public of the availability of the regulations prior to the passage of the Ordinance. As there is no evidence of compliance with the Statute, we cannot sustain the allegation that the Ordinance was validly adopted on the basis of that notice. There was another publication on March 10, 1989, initiated by the Director of Community Services which provided: The Benton City Council, at their regular scheduled meeting of 3/27/89, 7:00 p.m. will address the issue of adopting, by reference, an Ordinance regulating Zoning within the City of Benton, Ar. Copies of this regulation titled, City of Benton, Arkansas, Zoning Regulation and related maps, are available for public examination at the office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 222 W. South St., Benton, Ar. The legend on the map shows it was adopted by the Planning Commission on March 17, 1989, but the printed portion of the legend shows the map was created on March 22, 1989; a curious conflict. If the latter date is correct, the map now appended to the Ordinance could not have been available for public examination until March 22. The map was the most vital piece of information for anyone to see to determine the proposed zoning. The City suggests there may have been working maps on file with the City Clerk prior to the action of the Planning Commission's adoption of the regulation, but there is no suggestion that the final form of the map was there. No property owner could have been advised of the ultimate proposed status of property by any other than the final map proposal. In Osborne v. City of Camden, supra , we made it clear that the working map concept was insufficient for notice to the citizenry. While the Statute does not state a time prior to the passage of the ordinance adopting the code during which the proposed zoning map must be available, it must be available a reasonable length of time. The purpose of the publication requirement is identical to that of the requirement of a map in § 14-56-416(a)(2), that is, to give notice of the city's zoning proposal so that, before adoption, residents may object or make suggestions. To permit a municipality to avoid public scrutiny by making the most definitive piece of information in the code available only at the last minute and then adopting the code without offering that information to the public would defeat the legislative purpose of the notice requirement. If the disputed map, as stated on its printed legend, did not exist when notice was published on March 10, that notice did not comply with the statutory requirement for adoption of a zoning code by reference. Even if notice had been given properly that the map was available March 22, the five-day period before adoption would not have given the citizens a reasonable time to observe it. The City was not entitled to summary judgment on the basis of having adopted Ordinance 8 by reference pursuant to §§ 14-55-206 and 14-55-207. Given the factual dispute over whether the map was presented with Ordinance 8 for adoption, a disputed genuine issue of material fact remains to be resolved in determining whether the City complied with § 14-56-416. Reversed and remanded.