Hunt v. City of San Antonio, No. B--2407

CourtSupreme Court of Texas
Writing for the CourtMcGEE
Citation462 S.W.2d 536
Decision Date03 February 1971
Docket NumberNo. B--2407
PartiesMrs. Kent N. HUNT, Petitioner, v. The CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Respondent.

Page 536

462 S.W.2d 536
Mrs. Kent N. HUNT, Petitioner,
v.
The CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, Respondent.
No. B--2407.
Supreme Court of Texas.
Feb. 3, 1971.

W. R. Smith, San Antonio, for petitioner.

Kampmann, Kampmann, Church & Burns, Harry J. Burns, Howard C. Walker, San Antonio, for respondent.

McGEE, Justice.

Plaintiff brought this action against the City of San Antonio to have the City's Ordinance No. 33259, amending the City's Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance by rezoning Lots 1 and 2, Block 8, New City Block 3264 from 'A-Single Family Dwellings' to 'D-Apartments,' declared null and void, and for a permanent injunction enjoining the City from granting any permit for the construction on or the use of said lots other than as allowed in an 'A' zone. The trial court rendered judgment for plaintiff. The Court of Civil Appeals reversed and rendered judgment for the defendant. 458 S.W.2d 952. We reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and affirm the judgment of the trial court.

This case grew out of the second attempt in recent years to have the two lots in question rezoned. The lots, now vacant, are located on the southeast corner of the intersection of San Pedro Avenue and

Page 538

West Summit Street. Plaintiff owns a home in the immediate vicinity of the lots, Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance was enacted in 1938. The block containing the lots in question (3264), as well as the blocks to the north (3263), northeast (3260), east (3261) and southeast (3059), across Summit and down the street a few houses. (See plat). The San Antonio were all zoned for 'A' use. The only non-conforming use in this 'A' zone was and is a small apartment house located on the northeast corner of the intersection of San Pedro and Summit, directly north of

Page 539

the lots in question. It was in existence at the time the 1938 ordinance was passed and thus is a prior non-conforming use.

The first attempt to obtain a special exception to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for these lots was made by a group of doctors in 1959. They sought to use the land for a non-commercial parking lot. The exception was granted by the City's Board of Adjustment but was declared null and void by the 73rd District Court of Bexar County.

In January of 1965 two doctors requested the City to reclassify the two lots from an 'A' to a 'D' designation. The city council, after a hearing, passed Ordinance No. 33259, so rezoning the lots. In an 'A' district the only permitted uses are one family dwellings and accessory buildings including garages and servant quarters (garage apartments), public parks, playgrounds, schools and colleges. In a 'D' district various uses are permitted, including: hospitals, clinics, apartment houses, private clubs, fraternity and sorority houses, child and day care nurseries, etc. The doctors in this case intend to build a clinic on these two lots. There are other zoning classifications under the comprehensive plan, but none of them are involved here. The plat included in this opinion reflects the uses to which the other property in the area has been put.

The power of the City of San Antonio to pass the basic zoning ordinance is not questioned. Articles 1011a 1 et seq. grant to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
44 practice notes
  • Town of Sunnyvale v. Mayhew, No. 05-92-01401-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 10, 1994
    ...interfere unless the ordinance is unreasonable, arbitrary, and a clear abuse of municipal discretion. See Hunt v. City of San Antonio, 462 S.W.2d 536, 539 2. Applicable Facts The Mayhews base their substantive due process claim on their allegations that: (1) the Town did not base its denial......
  • Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, No. 96-50837
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 29, 1998
    ...the desired impact, does not mean that the mechanism is unreasonable, or, more to the point, arbitrary. See Hunt v. City of San Antonio, 462 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Tex.1971) ("If reasonable minds may differ as to whether or not a particular ... ordinance has a substantial relationship to the publ......
  • City of University Park v. Benners, No. B--3321
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • October 4, 1972
    ...1940 comprehensive ordinance does not promote the good of the community. Respondent's reliance upon Hunt v. City of San Antonio, 462 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.1971) and Weaver v. Ham, 149 Tex. 309, 232 S.W.2d 704 (1950), is misplaced. As recognized in Hunt, the problem in these cases involved 'spot' ......
  • City of Brookside Village v. Comeau, No. C-431
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • May 19, 1982
    ...to interfere unless the ordinance is unreasonable and arbitrary-a clear abuse of municipal discretion." Hunt v. City of San Antonio, 462 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Tex.1971); see Thompson v. City of Palestine, 510 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.1974). The party attacking the ordinance bears an "extraordinary burden......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
43 cases
  • Town of Sunnyvale v. Mayhew, No. 05-92-01401-CV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Texas
    • May 10, 1994
    ...interfere unless the ordinance is unreasonable, arbitrary, and a clear abuse of municipal discretion. See Hunt v. City of San Antonio, 462 S.W.2d 536, 539 2. Applicable Facts The Mayhews base their substantive due process claim on their allegations that: (1) the Town did not base its denial......
  • Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, No. 96-50837
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • April 29, 1998
    ...the desired impact, does not mean that the mechanism is unreasonable, or, more to the point, arbitrary. See Hunt v. City of San Antonio, 462 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Tex.1971) ("If reasonable minds may differ as to whether or not a particular ... ordinance has a substantial relationship to the publ......
  • City of University Park v. Benners, No. B--3321
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • October 4, 1972
    ...1940 comprehensive ordinance does not promote the good of the community. Respondent's reliance upon Hunt v. City of San Antonio, 462 S.W.2d 536 (Tex.1971) and Weaver v. Ham, 149 Tex. 309, 232 S.W.2d 704 (1950), is misplaced. As recognized in Hunt, the problem in these cases involved 'spot' ......
  • City of Brookside Village v. Comeau, No. C-431
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • May 19, 1982
    ...to interfere unless the ordinance is unreasonable and arbitrary-a clear abuse of municipal discretion." Hunt v. City of San Antonio, 462 S.W.2d 536, 539 (Tex.1971); see Thompson v. City of Palestine, 510 S.W.2d 579 (Tex.1974). The party attacking the ordinance bears an "extraordinary burden......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT