City of Spring Valley v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 July 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. B--3129,B--3129 |
| Citation | 484 S.W.2d 579 |
| Parties | CITY OF SPRING VALLEY, Petitioner, v. SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Schlanger, Cook & Cohn, C. B. Stephenson, Houston, for petitioner.
James M. Shatto and Joe R. Riley, Houston, for respondent.
The question here is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying a temporary injunction sought by the City of Spring Valley to prevent the Southwestern Bell Telephone Company from constructing in a residentially zoned area a parking lot to be used in connection with its central office building.
The Court of Civil Appeals concurred in the trial court's judgment that the parking facility was exempt by Article 1011i from city zoning regulations because of its necessity for maintenance and use of the telephone company's central office building. 1 It held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the temporary injunction. 473 S.W.2d 284. We affirm.
In 1946, respondent, hereinafter referred to as Bell Telephone, established a central office building in Spring Valley through which it furnished telephone service to 1000 customers. By 1970 it was serving 32,000 customers, and projected increases between 1970 and 1980 are at the rate of 2,300 per year. Its central operation has expanded to a total of four parcels of land and seven building additions. By 1977, the present complex, now located on Lot 1--A near the intersection of Katy Road and Bade Street, will require substantial expansion. It was to accommodate this expansion of its central office building and to provide parking space for use in connection with the present and expanded facilities that Bell Telephone purchased Lot 17, which lies immediately north of and adjacent to Lot 1--A. The latter is zoned by the City for commercial purposes, but Lot 17 is zoned for residential uses. Bell Telephone contends that the City's zoning powers do not extend to Lot 17 so long as it is used for 'location, construction, maintenance or use of' its central office building.
Articles 1011a et seq. grant to cities the power to regulate 'the location and use of buildings, structures and land' and to establish zoning districts therefor. However, Article 1011i provides a special exception with reference to telephone companies, as follows:
'The provisions of this Act or of any ordinance of any city or town, enacted under the authority of this Act, shall not apply to the location, construction, maintenance or use of central office buildings of corporations, firms or individuals engaged in the furnishing of telephone service to the public, or to the location, construction, maintenance or use of any equipment in connection with such buildings or a part of such telephone system, necessary in the furnishing of telephone service to the public.'
Neither party challenges the validity of the above mentioned Acts. Bell Telephone concedes that the City's zoning ordinance is valid, and that its only right to make commercial use of Lot 17 is dependent upon its facility coming under the exception provided in the above quoted Article 1011i.
The City initially sought to enjoin Bell Telephone from making any commercial use of Lot 17, either...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co.
...evidence does not reasonably support the conclusion that the applicant has a probable right of recovery. City of Spring Valley v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 484 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.1972); Camp v. Shannon, 162 Tex. 515, 348 S.W.2d 517 (1961); Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Egan, 126 Tex. 160, 86 S.......
-
Highlands Management Co., Inc. v. First Interstate Bank of Texas, N.A.
...essential to the use of any building and to the conduction of a business therein. Id. at 631 (citing City of Spring Valley v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 484 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Tex.1972)). Thus, the court concluded the parking lot was an integral part of the proposed operation, and as su......
-
City of Houston v Todd
...writ). An erroneous application of the law to undisputed facts will constitute an abuse of discretion. City of Spring Valley v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 484 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Tex. 1972). DISCUSSION In their issues one and two, respectively, METRO and the City contend that the trial court ......
-
Bank of Southwest N.A., Brownsville v. Harlingen Nat. Bank, 13-83-370-CV
...not unlimited; it does not extend to the erroneous application of the law to the undisputed facts. City of Spring Valley v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 484 S.W.2d at 579, 581 (Tex.1972). In his first point of error, appellant asserts that the trial court erred, as a matter of law, in g......