Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

l. j i f 1__- __ November 15, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 22 of the validity of the ordinance and the burden [was] on the person at- tacking it to show its invalidity." Salyer could produce no evidence that the ordinance was invalid; this argument was without merit. Salyer next claim was based on the allegation that the attorney for the board of adjustment improperly acted as investigator, prosecutor and advisor during the board proceedings. The court dismissed this al- legation as well, noting that board of adjustment hearings were admin- istrative in nature and there was no requirement that such hearings had to comply with strict judicial procedures. As long as the board's findings were supported by the evidence, the court would not disturb them. Additionally, the appeals court found that no q;ue process violations had occurred. A public hearing that afforded any interested person the opportunity to appear and be heard was all that was required. Here, there was no allegation that any interested person was either not per- mitted to attend or not permitted to testify; as such, all procedural due process requirements were met. Salyer also claim~d that his operation fit within the permitted uses in the heavy industrial zone, but the city's zoning ordinance specifically set forth all permitted uses and mulch facilities were not among them. With regard to conditional use status, it was within the city's discretion to grant that status based on its review of the evidence; here, evidence in the record supported the finding that the facility was "obnoxious to the general public. " The appeals court could not say that the board's decision was unsup- ported by substantial evidence or that it was arbitrary and capricious. The decision of the lower court was affirmed. Adult Entertainment-Sexually oriented business on annexed property subject to city's ordinance Owner argues business does not fit definition of ordinance, qualifies for grandfather status Citation: Smartt v. City of Laredo, 2007 WL 3087495 (Tex. App. Amarillo 2007) TEXAS (10/23/07)-Smartt began operating a sexually oriented busi- ness outside of the city limits of Laredo in 1995. In 1998, Laredo an- nexed the property. Subsequently, the city amended its zoning ordinance to require sexually oriented business to obtain a license and refrain from conducting operations within. 1,000 feet of a residential area, Specifically, the ordinance stated that it was illegal "for any person to op- erate a sexually oriented business without a valid sexually oriented business license." The ordinance further prohibited a "person [from] operat[ing] or caus[ing] to be operated a sexually oriented business within one thousand (1000) feet" of a church, a public or private school, a boundary of any resi- 11 61