Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/2006

Home

r" ( ZB. August 25, 2006 - Page 7 property and to develop it into a truck -stop casino. The. agreement was contingent on Prest obtaining the necessary zoning and special-use exceptions. Prest filed an application with the Metropolitan Shreveport Zoning Board of Appeals seeking special exception use status, which was required under the town's ordinances for any use involving the sale or dispensing of alcohol. Mter a public hearing, the board voted to grant Prest's request for a special exception use for a truck. stop with gambling and the sale of alcoholic bever- ages on the premises. Members of the community appealed the board's deci- sion to the town's zoning commission. Mter a hearing, the commission voted to reverse the board's decision and deny the special exception use. At the same time, the commission voted to rezone Prest's property to a Light Industry district, w~ch would allow for the development of a truck-stop, but without gaming or alcohol. Prest appealed the commission's decision to court. Aftyr a hearing, the court ruled that the commission's overruling of the board's decision was arbi- trary and capricious because it was not based on any legitimate concerns over the health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding residents,The court found in Prest's favor and reinstated the special use permit. . The commission chose not to appeal the court's decision, but an abutting property owner, Elston, filed'a subsequent appeal. DECISION: Reversed. On appeal, Elston contended that the trial court erred in reversing the commission's decision as arbitrary and capricious, asserting that it was reason- able and based on substantial evidence related to concerns over public health and safety. In addition to other community members' concerns, Elston owned 425 acres of land next to the proposed truck-stop site, and gambling and alcohol sales would be inconsistent with her plans to develop her property into a residential development. Another concern that was raised was related to the relationship between gambling and increased crime rates. Prest argued that he had shown conclusively that the public concerns were unfounded, but that was not the standard for reversing a zoning agency's decision. For the commission's decision to be overturned properly, Prest hadto show by a preponderance of the evidence that the decision had "no substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the municipal- ity." After reviewing the record, the appeals court concluded that Prest had not met that burden, and the commission had acted reasonably in considering ,citi- zens' concerns about the impact that the truck-stop casino would have had on the surrounding community. The lower court's decision was thereby reversed. see also: King v. Caddo Parish Commission, 719 So.2d 410 (1998). @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 75