Issue: In Iowa, can a Township refuse to process a development plan on the ground that the proposed use is not a permitted use under the existing zoning ordinance?
| Area of Law: | Real Estate Law |
| Keywords: | Zoning ordinance; Permitted use; Refusal to process a development plan |
| Jurisdiction: | Iowa |
| Cited Cases: | 371 N.W.2d 403; 167 Wis. 2d 308; 531 N.W.2d 445; 542 N.W.2d 276; 242 N.W.2d 99; 447 U.S. 102; 489 U.S. 235; 192 Wis. 2d 606; 74 Wis. 2d 468; 197 Wis. 2d 157; 55 Md. App. 573; 247 N.W.2d 98; 616 N.W.2d 483; 588 N.W.2d 85; 539 N.W.2d 264; 481 N.W.2d 669; 485 A.2d 678; 125 Wis. 2d 269; 198 Wis. 2d 592; 565 N.W.2d 279; 469 U.S. 153; 543 N.W.2d 515; 222 Wis. 2d 222; 466 A.2d 504; 237 Wis. 501; 444 U.S. 37; 234 N.W.2d 350 |
| Cited Statutes: | None |
| Date: | 01/01/2001 |
See City of Waukesha v. Town Bd., 198 Wis. 2d 592, 543 N.W.2d 515 (Ct. App. 1995) (a properly enacted zoning ordinance is presumed to be valid and must be liberally construed in favor of the zoning authority; any alleged invalidity must be clearly shown by the party attacking the ordinance); State ex rel. Brooks v. Hartland Sportsman’s Club, Inc., 192 Wis. 2d 606, 531 N.W.2d 445 (Ct. App. 1995) (a statute granting zoning power to cities for the purpose of promoting health, safety, or the general welfare of the community and the ordinances enacted thereunder must be liberally construed in favor of the city).
When construing a zoning ordinance, the rules of statutory construction apply. See, e.g., Kalinoff v. Columbus Township, 542 N.W.2d 276 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995); SuperAmerica Group, Inc. v. City of Little Canada, 539 N.W.2d 264 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995); Cole v. Board of Adjustment, 616 N.W.2d 483 (S.D. 2000). A basic canon of statutory construction is that the starting point for interpreting a statute is the language of the statute itself. Consumer Prod. Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980). Absent express intent to the contrary, that language must be regarded as conclusive. Id. at 108. Words must be given their ordinary, common, and contemporary meanings, Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42 […]