The city GIS map for a subdivision split by a draw running east-west shows a subdivision to be zoned R-3. The city ordinance creating the zoning calls for the subdivision land north of draw to be R-1 and south of the draw to be R-3 and the R-3 zoning was incorrectly expanded by the GIS mappers. Later the city passed a second zoning ordinance calling for the zoning map to be official.
A land developer buys the land on the basis of the GIS and proceeds to work on a plan to develop the property. The issue of the zoning comes up and the developer takes the city to court. The court rules in favor of the developer. I have not seen all the particulars of their decision; but from what I understand the court put little weight on the disclaimer that the city attaches to the GIS map.
To me, this is an interesting one to watch as it unfolds. Can you point me/us to any online links to newspaper articles, City meeting links, etc.?
Thanks for posting the topic.
Chuck
Not sure just how this will end. The city is looking at an appeal.
http://www.thesheridanpress.com/01.pdf
If there were public hearings when the GIS map was adopted as the official zoning map, that would have been the time for concerned citizens to review it and object to the up-zoning of this parcel from R-1 to R-3. If, after those hearings, the ordinance was adopted that the map is the official document that defines zoning, I don't see how the City goes back now and says whoops.
Around here, zoning density is not any guarantee that you will get approval of that density through the hearing process. The agency can still find that the project has adverse environmental or public safety impact and reduce your density to whatever they and the squirrels prefer.
It's an interesting case. With two ordinances’ in conflict the court picked the later one. The legal description that was written for the zoning was rejected and the map was given status over it.