Wolf v. City of Ely

The City of Ely (defendant) established a planning and zoning commission (the commission) sometime prior to 1976. In 1976, the city passed an ordinance that granted the commission the authority to conduct studies or plans that bore a relation to the general comprehensive plan. The ordinance provided that a comprehensive plan was to be adopted by the commission and then sent to the city council for approval. After approval by the council, the plan would constitute the city’s official comprehensive plan. The commission never developed a comprehensive plan, so the city council never approved a comprehensive plan. In 1978, the city adopted a zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance was developed by combining multiple model zoning ordinances. The zoning ordinance contained glaring omissions and serious structural problems. Terms appeared in the definition section of the ordinance, yet they did not appear elsewhere in the ordinance. For example, junkyards were defined in the ordinance, but they were not a permitted use in any district. Another example, one provision prohibited fences over five feet, but a different provision required a six-foot fence. The zoning ordinance was clearly a careless combination of multiple zoning ordinances. Further, up to four different zoning maps had been identified as the official city zoning map. John and Pat Wolf (plaintiffs) owned three connected properties on which they operated a junkyard. All three properties were zoned under different classifications. In fact, one of the properties was zoned residential on one zoning map and agricultural on another. The Wolfs brought an action against the city for a declaration that the 1978 zoning ordinance was invalid because it was not adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. At trial, a councilman testified that zoning matters were dealt with on an as-needed basis and that he had not heard of a comprehensive zoning plan. The trial court declared the zoning ordinance invalid. The city appealed.