Court Opinion

ID: 9850120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:52:25.601611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:31.971452
License: Public Domain

STERNBERG, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
I would hold, as did the district court, that the county commissioners cannot treat the resolution in question so lightly to serve the convenience of the moment. When legislation has long been on the books, there is a presumption of validity. Town of Fletcher v. Hickman, 136 P. 568 (8th Cir.1905), cert. denied, 201 U.S. 644, 26 S.Ct. 759, 50 L.Ed. 902 (1906). In I R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 4.08 at 194 (2d ed. 1976) it is stated that: “The right of a property owner to challenge a zoning ordinance for failure of the legislative body to observe the procedural requirements of the enabling statutes may be forfeited by a protracted delay in the institution of legal action.” Similarly, the 'legislative body, here the county commissioners, should not be allowed to treat as void a resolution that has been on the books for ten years.
Moreover, it is not at all clear from the record that the 1971 resolution is invalid. In that resolution the commissioners approved an amendment to the Official Development Plan (ODP) for the subject property. The 1971 resolution purported to waive the requirement for delineated lot lines because they were unnecessary and went on to state:
“That this board believes that the location of buildings placed within such area is a matter of design that is more the concern of the developer and its architect; that the requested amendment is essentially for clarification' purposes; constitutes no deviation from the plan as submitted and approved by this board; is unsubstantial in nature; does not alter the official development plan materially or fundamentally change such plan; and such amendment should appear on the plan for the purpose of allowing the developer to receive appropriate building permits for the development of such area .... ” (emphasis added)
The resolution then stated:
“This board has received an opinion of the county attorney that amendments made to such plan in those factual circumstances where a requested amendment is minor in nature and the board *509may approve amendments to official development plans without the necessity of statutory rezoning procedures.”
Based on this quoted language from the 1971 resolution I have two distinct difficulties with the conclusion reached by the majority opinion. First, the 1971 resolution did not rezone the property at all. This is not a rezoning case. We are dealing with an ODP. That is what was amended, the property was not rezoned. We are not provided with any details as to adoption or amendment of an ODP. Is an ODP like a subdivision plat, or, as the treatment in the majority opinion would seem to indicate, is an ODP really in the nature of a rezoning so that statutory requirements including giving of notice are essential?
Even if notice is required to amend an ODP, we err in allowing a type of collateral attack to be made on the resolution, and in approving a seemingly off-the-cuff interpretation that the resolution is void, without requiring proof that notice of the resolution had not in fact been given.
For these reasons, I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.