Opinion ID: 2452060
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The map

Text: The primary unresolved fact dispute in this case concerns the zoning map which is attached to the regulation titled, City of Benton, Arkansas, Zoning Regulation, adopted by Ordinance 8 on March 27, 1989. Ordinance 8 is entitled: AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE CITY OF BENTON, ARKANSAS, BY REFERENCE RELATING TO: ATHORITY, JURISDICTION AND PUPOSE; DEFINITIONS; ADMINISTRTIVE PROCEDURE AND ENFORCMENT; GENERAL PROVISIONS; ETABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS; DITRICT REGULATIONS; OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING FACILTIES; MOBILE HOMES; SPECIAL PROVISIONS. Affidavits presented by Citizens from each of the individual plaintiffs stated no map was attached to the Ordinance, read with the Ordinance, or introduced at the combined hearing and board meeting at which Ordinance 8 was adopted. The legend imprinted on the zoning map now accompanying the Ordinance states it was prepared by Metroplan on March 22, 1989, just five days prior to the passage of the Ordinance. The City's response included the minutes of the March 27 Board meeting along with affidavits of Charles Randel, Metroplan staff member; Rodney Larsen, Mayor; Buddy Burrow, Community Development Director; and Margaret Ramsey, City Clerk. There is nothing in the City's evidence which contradicts the assertions raised by Citizens. The minutes of the meeting do not mention a map attached to the Ordinance or any discussion of a map displayed with the Ordinance. The affidavit of Buddy Burrow states the zoning map has been on continuous display in city hall from and after its adoption on March 27, 1989, but does not say the map was on display at the hearing and meeting when Ordinance 8 was adopted. Charles Randel states that prior to the enactment of Ordinance 8 of 1989, the text of the ordinance, accompanying regulations adopted in conjunction therewith, and the zoning map, were discussed and debated in detail over several sessions of the Benton Planning Commission. He says the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the regulations on February 27, 1989, and adopted them on March 9, 1989, but his affidavit does not indicate that the regulations to which the map was ultimately attached were presented at the March 27 meeting of the City Board. Randel further asserts that Chapter V of the regulations makes reference to, and authorizes filing and display of, the `Zoning Map, City of Benton, Arkansas' and suggests that that part of the text of the regulation constitutes the map required by law, but there is no indication that this text was presented or attached to the Ordinance discussed and adopted at the meeting. Cities have no inherent authority to enact legislation. That authority is dependent upon the Constitution and the General Assembly. City of Fordyce v. Vaughn, 300 Ark. 554, 781 S.W.2d 6 (1989). Municipal zoning authority is conferred solely by state enabling legislation. Taggart v. City of Augusta, 278 Ark. 570, 647 S.W.2d 458 (1983). Failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements of the enabling statute renders a zoning ordinance invalid. City of Searcy v. Roberson, 224 Ark. 344, 273 S.W.2d 26 (1954). A zoning ordinance shall consist of both a map and a text. Section 14-56-416(a)(2). Compliance is mandatory, and failure renders a zoning ordinance void. City of Benton v. Phillips, 191 Ark. 961, 88 S.W.2d 828 (1936). The purpose of the map requirement is to give notice of a zoning proposal so that, before adoption, residents may object or make suggestions, and after adoption, land purchasers and users may acquaint themseives witn tne zoning restrictions, usborne v. City of Camden, 301 Ark. 420, 784 S.W.2d 596 (1990). The City's burden in seeking summary judgment before the Chancellor, was to show no issues of fact remained. Smith v. Gray, supra . The availability of the map at the meeting on March 27 was a disputed question of fact, and contrary to the assertions of the City on appeal, it is a material fact. It was their burden to present evidence in support of their motion to show that the map was presented along with the text of Ordinance 8. As we resolve inferences in favor of the party resisting the motion, we conclude that Citizens presented evidence showing there was no map presented with the Ordinance, and the City contended the contrary. A genuine issue of fact remains to be decided.