Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/29/2002

Home

122 Page 6 -- July 25, 2002 Spot Zoning -- Councilman proposes down:zofing property to disallo.w apartments . Developer claims no le~timate public concerns Warranted the change TEXAS (06/19.2/02) -- In 1994, a developer purchased property that was zoned to al/ow the construction of multi-fa .m/ly apartment complexes./.n 1999, a city counc/Iman, who represented the district in which the developer's property was located, proposed the property be downzoned to a classLfication in wh/ch offices and other business development would be allowed, but no apartments. After an open hearing, the city enacted a new zoning ordi~nance that resulted in the downzoning. The developer f'fled for court order stopping the rezonmg, alleging there was no legitimate public concerns warranting a change in zoning. The devel- oper also alleged the councilman had an ulterior motive for proposing the change and the change amounted to impermissib'le "spot zoning." The trial court granted judgTnent without a trial to .the developer, and the city appealed. :- DECISION: Reversed. . The rezoning was reasonable and appropr/ate. The reasonableness of a zoning law is a question of law for the judge to decide. Here, the nearby citizens had the following concerns: the need for an appropriate buffer zone for the nearby residential area, an aversion to the con- struction of apartments which would overlook family residences, and approxi- mately 1,000 sig-natures of area residents opposed tO the apartment development. The court determined the city raised a number of arguable issues of fact re,.Lated to the potential adverse effects on the adjacent homes and local traffic area that would be exacerbated by the development of the apartment complex. Thus, the developer failed to carry its burden to demonstrate no valid relation- ship between the rezoning and public welfare. The court also rejected the argument that the downzoning was impermis- sible "spot zoning." The city clearly demonstrated issues existed relating to the general weLt'are when it rezoned the area. Citation: City of San Antonio v. Arden Encino Parmers LTD., Court of Appeals of Texas, 4th Dist., San Antonio, No. 04-01-00008-CV(2002). see also: Thompson v. Ci~. of Palestine, 510 S.W. 2d 579 (1974). see also: fffousron & T.C. Railway Co. v Ci~. of Dallas, 84 S.W. 648 (1905). Nonconforming Use -- Animal shelter added holding pens and gravel pad Was this an expansion of a previcus nonconforming use ? LNDLKNA (06/11/2002) In 1973;"the City of Muncie adopted a zoning ordi- nance that zoned an area where the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) had a facility as a "R-1 Residence Zone." SPCA continued to operate'~l_~e facility as a valid nonconforrmng use. When the ordinance was passed, SPCA had been using one building for the housing of animals.