Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2006

Home

Page 8--June 10,2006 Rezoning-- Property owner seeks to have land rezoned for commercial use Claims most of neighboring land zoned higher than residential Citation: Covey v. City of East Ridge, Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Knoxville, No. E2005-O1510-COA-R3-CV (2006) TENNESSEE (04/28/06) -- Covey purchased property in East Ridge that was zoned as an R-1 residential district. On May 23, 2003, Covey asked the plann/ng commission to rezone his property to a C-2 commercial district. He stated that nearly all of the land surrounding his property was zoned higher than residential. Covey further claimed that a neighbor, Smith, had rezoned his property from R-1 to C-2 in March 2003, and that no si~cant differences existed between Coveg;s and Smith's propert55 Covey a~so alleged that Smith had not given any specific plans nor made any improvements to his land before requesting the rezoning. The chief building official supported Covey's request, recommending that a naturally occurring buffer between the road and the property remain in tact. How- ever, the commission recommended denying the request. The commission cited concerns regarding access to the property and exposure of adjacent property. At a hearing before the city council, Covey stated that he had no plans to develop his property for commercial use. He also stated that he sought the rezoning to receive "proper compensation" in the pending acquisition of one acre of his property due to construction to widen the road that abutted his land. The city council voted to deny the request on Aug. 28, 2003. Covey sued, arguing that East Ridge had improperly denied his request. The trial court denied Covey any relief, and he appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. A judgment for Covey required proving that refusing to rezone his property was arbitrary or capricious. He argued that -- because most of the property sur- rounding his was zoned for commercial use, and Smith rezoned his property only months before --denying the rezoning was arbitrary. However, the record showed many reasons why East Ridge might have found the request inappropriate. Several East Ridge residents -- who were familiar with the property and the area, thereby considered relative "experts" by the court -- opposed Covey's request. Their pr/mary concern was that rezoning would decrease the value of other property in the area. Further, the trial court found substantial differences between Covey's and Smith's rezoning requests. Any of those differences, by themselves, would have justified reaching different conclusion in the two cases. The appeals court ~'ound that -- based on sufficient and material evidence -- the trial court correctly upheld East Ridge's decision and did not act arbi- trarily or capriciously. Finally, the appeals court found that East R/dge did not exceed its jurisdiction or abuse its discretion. see also: Br. of Comnz 'rs of Roane Co~m~ v. Parker, 88 S. ~V3d 916 (2002). © 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more reformation please carl (817) 542-0048. 178