Court Opinion

ID: 9648754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:34:12.908559+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:12:05.266187
License: Public Domain

EAGER, Judge
(concurring in result).
I would find no particular difficulty in holding that the notices, hearing and report as given, conducted and made in connection with the prior Ordinance No. 2518 would supply those requirements for the Ordinance now proposed; they referred to and affected precisely the same matter.
I would prefer to put this holding upon the basic fact that the respondents are attempting to accomplish by indirection that which they are specifically prohibited from doing directly; that is to say, they may not create any amendment to the zoning ordinance by referendum, but in fact and in substance they are here seeking a referendum upon the enactment of the prior ordinance. I would doubt that any zoning amendment may be accomplished by initiative.