Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/1997

Home

rezoning application, neighboring properry owners often complain that a zoning change will increase traffic flow and thereby adversely affect their properry values and the neighborhood's residential character. [See City of Tampa v. Seth, 517 So.2d 786 (Fla. App. 1988).] Where the rezoning proponent fails to establish sufficient changed conditions in the area surrounding the parcel, these allegations may provide good cause for disapproval. [See Amalgamated Trust & Savings Bank v. County of Cook, 402 N.E.2d 719 (Ill. App. 1980).] However, where the rezoning applicant or municipal zoning body can show sufficient changed conditions, the adverse impact of the projected traffic il1crease may be balanced against the public benefit of the rezoning. (See Woodland Hills Conservation Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Jackson.) Changes to Sun'oullding Area. The strongest indicator of changed conditions necessary to sustain or overturn a rezoning decision concerns changes in the area surrounding the property at issue. The delineation of the affected neighborhood depends on the facts and circumstances of each case, and courts refrain from issuing strict guidelines to define it. The definition of the neighborhood and how near a change must be to affect its character are primarily matters for the rezoning board to deter- mine. [See Board of Supervisors of Henri co County v. Fralin and Waldron, Inc., 278 S.E.2d 859 (Va. 1981) (zoning board defined neighborhood as area within three-fourths of a mile of the subject properry).] It is a determination of fact that is a function of the zoning body and not an issue for the reviewing court. [See Coleman v. Gonnley, 748 P.2d 361 (Colo. App. 1987).] For example, in Luter v. Hammoll, 529 So.2d 625 (Miss. 1988), the mayor and board of aldermen of Tyler town, Mississippi, rezoned from residential to commercial use an undeveloped parcel of land lying between a business enterprise and a residence and surrounded by commercial properties. Although the properry was zoned for single-family residential use, it had remained an undeveloped, vacant lor. Commercial properties were located to the north, south, and west, and one of only four remaining residential lots in the downtown area was located directly to the east. The owners of these residential lots contested the rezoning on grounds that there had not been sufficient change in the character of the neighborhood to justify the single parcel rezoning. In evaluating the rezoning's validiry, the court reviewed the findings of the mayor and board. They based their decision on the lack of residential development and increased commercial development in the surrounding area, which included a lumber warehouse, nursery, day care center, law office, fast food restaurant, and insurance office. The court concluded that this evidence showed a general commercialization of properties in the downtown area and the continued shrinkage of those properties used for residential purposes. Thus, the court held that the rezoning was justified by a change in neighborhood character. On the other hand, in City Commission of the City of Miami v. Woodlawn Park Cemetery Company, 553 So.2d 1227 (Fl~. App. 1989), the court held that the ciry's refusal to rezone a 1.3- acre parcel of Woodlawn's 66-acre cemetery from residential to commercial use was arbitrary and discriminatory in light of changed conditions in the area surrounding the properry. The court reviewed the changes that had occurred since the 1930s, when the subject parcel was first zoned residential. The street on which the parcel fronted was an undeveloped country road in what was then a very small town called Miami. Over the next 50 years, the neighboring area had been totally transformed into a commercial area as part of the city's II~ I,,' 'F.: ;.{ (continued from page 1) ;:~ .:. Scenario Two ;;;' The local zoning bod)1 approves a downzoning of land .from a less restrictive to a more restrictive use :~~ classification, and owners of the rezoned land challenge f:? the reasonableness of the rezoning. Y;'i Sullivan v. Town of Acton, 645 N.E.2d 700 (Mass. :.:::..~,.,i".:_:..i.,,'::;. App. 19951) \r:zoning fidrom businbel'ss to residfential ',;_ use was a egmmate an reasona e means 0 advancing the goals of a long-range planning study) Miller v. Town of Tilton, 655 A.2d 409 (N.H. 1995) (rezoning from industrial to agricultural use was not illegal spot zoning because it was not inconsistent with comprehensive plan) Board of Supervisors of Henri co County v. Fralin and Waldron, Inc., 278 S.E.2d 859 (Va. 1981) (counry board of supervisors failed to establish changed conditions necessary to rezone properry from multifamily to single-family residential use) Woodcrest Investments Corp. v. Skagit COUllty, 694 P.2d 705 (Wash. App. 1985) (insufficient evidence of changed circumstances to support rezoning from residential to rural use classification) .5' ~"". .' :~ :~~ .~':'i; '".~.f tt1 I-~t: :;; . '~(' '~:i ~~~ .~ ;. '.:;.~ .~':O ,"". .~of: ~ i " t ::.- .: .-i" 3 ".' "