Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2003

Home

Page 8 -- April 25, 2003 438 It was also noted Plassman himself invoked the appeals process by filing an appeal directly to the board. Thus, he had an opportunity for a full and fair hearing. Citation: Otis PIassman v. City of Wattseon, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 6th App. Dist., Fulton Co., No. F~O2-O2d (2003). see also: Kau~,an v. Newburgh Heights, 271 N.E. 2d 280 (1971). Spot Zoning -- City rezones and blocks development Owners claim city appeasing disgruntled homeowners TEXAS (3/12/03) -- ,~Lrden Encino Partnerships Ltd. bought a parcel of land in 1994 that was zoned B-2, which allowed the development of apartment complexes. In 1999, a nearby property was rezoned from R-1, single family residence use, also to B-2. Prior to this. change, a number.of residential property owners objected to the new designation. At a public hearing a city councilman, Bannwolf, advised the objectors that he could not break his word to the devel- oper. Bannwolf also stated he would seek to rezone the AEP property to O-1, which allowed offices, but not apartments. In November 1999, the city didin fact rezone the AEP property, thus block- ing the apartment development. AEP sued, contending the zoning change amounted to illegal spot zoning. Further, AEP alleged the onl~y reason for the change was to appease the con- cerns of disgruntled local homeowners. Further, AEP claimed there were no legitimate public concerns warranting the zoning change. The trial court granted AEP judgment, and stopped the city from adopting the zoning change to AEP's property. The city appealed, contending there existed a number of issues of fact. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. The zoning change was valid. No property owner had a vested interest in maintaining a particular zoning classification, and a local government could rezone as public necessity de- manded. Also, a zoning ordinance was presumed to be valid, and the burden was on the person attempting to prevent enforcement to prove the new ordi- nance was arbitrary and unreasonable because it bore no substantial relation- ship to the general weffare, public health, and safety of the general public.. Here, the citizens opposed to the apartment complex raised a number of legitimate concerns related to ingress and egress, traffic, and increased stresses on public services. The court rejected the claim of :'spot zoning" because the zoning chhnge arguably bore "a reasonable relation to the general welfare and to an orderly plan of zoning development." Citation: City of San Antonio v. Arden Encino Partnerships Ltd., Court of Appeals of' Texas, Fourth District, San A,~tonio, No. 04-01-00008-CV (2003). see also: City e? University Park v. Benners, 485 S. W. 2d 773 (1972).