Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

goB. July 10, 1999- Page 7 Rezoning m Owner claims city had no reason to deny rezoning request MISSISSIPPI (6/8/99) -- Burdine was a long-time developer in the city of Greenville. He began a residential development project in 1993 and got the city's approval for the northern half of a 16-acre subdivision. He built eight houses on the northern portion. The following year, the city approved Burdine's subdivision plat for the southern portion of the development, which proposed 24 residential lots. Both portions of the property were on the west side of a major four-lane thoroughfare. Burdine later asked the city to rezone the southern portion of his property to light commercial. The east side of the road had been commercially devel- oped by various businesses, but the west side remained residential except for one lot rezoned for a medical facility. Burdine wanted the city to rezone the property so he could build other medical facilities. State law provided that before a zoning board could rezone property, it needed proof that either (1) there was a mistake in the original zoning, or (2) the character of the neighborhood had changed enough to justify reclassifica- tion and there was a public need for the rezoning. Burdine claimed the neighborhood had changed so much that residential subdivision was no longer practical. He cited businesses such as a clinic, a church, a YMCA, a Masonic Lodge, the American Legion, and an apartment complex as examples of commercial use in the area. Burdine claimed there was a public necessity for medically related facilities, pointing out that the city had rezoned the property next to his after finding there was a public need for an orthopedic clinic. The city planning commission denied Burdine's request, and the city coun- cil upheld the commission's decision. The city council acknowledged that it had previously rezoned property adjacent to Burdine's, but it had considered that Burdine originally planned to use the property for residential development and that his property was essentially surrounded by residential subdivisions. Burdine appealed to court. He claimed the city's decision was arbitrary and' unreasonable because he proved the character of the neighborhood had changed and that there was a public need for medical facilities. He also claimed the city's refusal to rezone his property after it had rezoned other similarly situated properties amounted to a confiscatory taking withodt payment in violation of the state constitution. The court affirmed the city council's decision, and Burdine appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed. The city council properly refused to rezone Burdine's property, and its re- fusal to rezone the property didn't amount to a taking. So long as the city council's refusal to rezone Burdine's property was "fairly debatable," the court couldn't overturn its decision. Substantial evidence sup- ported the city council's decision to deny the application. Preserving the resi- dential zoning of an established neighborhood was always a valid city goal: