Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/11/2004

Home

January 25, 2004 -- Page 7 Although the more towers there were lessened the measurable effect of an- other tower on the character of the neighborhood, more towers also vceakened the argument for another rower based on a. claimed need for wider coverage. Con- sequently, there was no greater likelihood of additional towers being approved. Cira~iom' Prime Coml2any Personal Communications v. City .of Meq~on, 7th U.S. Circ~tir Co~trr of Appeals, }Vos. 03-1514 & 03-1548 (2003). The 7th Circgdt has j~trisdicrion over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. see also: Preferred Sites LLC v. Trottp Count/, 296 F. 3d 1210 (2002). ~ see also: ~/oiceStream Minneapolis b~c. v. St. Croix County, 342 F. 3d 818 (2003). Standing ~ Buyer of land seeks rezoning Contract signed, but land not yet conveyed ARKANS AS (12/10/03) ~ Tyrer owned a '102-unit mobile home park. TO the south and east of the park were 52 acres of undeveloped land that was zoned single family residential. Tyrer entered into a contract to purchase the undevel- oped land fi'om its or)hers, the Mullis and Sulfridge families. Tyrer applied to the city planning commission to rezone the property to multi-family high density. The commission approved the rezorfing request. A neighboring landowner sued to block the rezoning, clairning Tyrer had no standing to request rezoning for the undeveloped portion of land. The 6ourt declared the rezoning void. Tyrer appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Tyrer did not have standing to bring the rezoning request. Tyrer argued he had executed a contract to purchase the property-and could be considered its ownen'However, although the holder of an equitable interest in property (such as a sales agreement) could have standing to seek rezoning of it, the City of Jonesboro expressly required a rezoning applicant be the record owner of the property. Tyrer was not the record owner of the property at the time of the rezoning application. In fact, Tyrer testified the Mullis and Sulfl-/dge families did not convey the property to him until four months after the filing of the rezoning application.. Although Tyrer also claimed he filed the application as an agent of the Mullis and Sulfl'idge families who, under the city's procedures, had standing, these families did not ask Tyrer to act on the/r behalf, nor did Tyrer purport to act on their behalf. Tyrer acted on [tis own behalf, ~hrough bis agent,, for his own purposes. Consequently, ar the time he made the rezoning request, he had no standing [o do so. Ciratiom' Tyrer v. Ryan, Coz,~rr of A£peals of'Arkansas, Div. 4, No. CA03-462 (2003). .~'ee also: M~,irph), v. Ci~. of WesI Memphis, fOJ S. W. 3d 221 (2003). see c,i.,;(;: Cra'michel v. McA~tk, e, 7 S. W. 3d 350 (1999). 113