Oklahoma City v. Barclay
| Decision Date | 13 December 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38484,38484 |
| Parties | OKLAHOMA CITY, a Municipal Corporation, and The Steve Pennington Foundation, a Corporation, Plaintiffs in Error, v. Jack H. BARCLAY et al., Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
When the validity of a municipal zoning ordinance is challenged, it is the courts duty to determine if such ordinance is a reasonable exercise of its legislative powers under the zoning statutes, or whether such ordinance is an arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious exercise of such powers. Record examined and held: The judgment of the trial court that the amendatory ordinance in question is an arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious exercise of its legislative powers under the zoning statutes is not against the clear weight of the evidence.
Appeal from the District Court of Oklahoma County; Glen O. Morris, Judge.
Plaintiffs in error appeal from a judgmen which declared amendatory ordinance No. 8020, passed by the City of Oklahoma City, a municipality, to be invalid and void. Affirmed.
A. L. J.effrey, Municipal Counselor, Edward H. Moler, Asst. Municipal Counselor, Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error, Oklahoma City.
Bailey, McClelland & Collins, by William F. Collins, Jr., Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error, Steve Pennington Foundation.
Kennedy & Kennedy, Oklahoma City, for defendants in error.
On April 9, 1957, the City of Oklahoma City, adopted amendatory ordinance No. 8020, which changed the boundaries of a commercial zoning district by including therein lots 12 and 13, Block 10, Steve Pennington's 9th Addition to Oklahoma City. Plaintiffs, individual owners of certain lots in the addition, commenced this action attacking the validity of said ordinance and prayed that the same be declared invalid and void, and that The Steve Pennington Foundation, a Corporation, owner of lots 12 and 13, be enjoined from constructing any building on or using either of said lots in violation of the zoning ordinance in existence prior to April 9, 1957.
Judgment was for plaintiffs and after a motion for new trial was overruled, the City of Oklahoma City and The Steve Pennington Foundation perfected their appeal. The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court, or as plaintiffs, City and Foundation.
Plaintiffs alleged they are individual owners of lots 1, part of lot 4, and lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19, Block 10, lots 15 and 16, Block 6 and lot 13, Block 9, all in The Steve Pennington's 9th Addition to the City of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; that the Foundation owns lots 12 and 13, Block 10, in said addition; that plaintiffs' lots are improved, the improvements consisting of single residential dwellings and are situated in what is termed the 'A', 'Single Family Dwelling District' as defined in the zoning ordinance; that the structures in said zone or district are limited primarily to buildings for residential purposes and under the zoning ordinance prior to April 9, 1957, commercial use was not permitted in said zone; that at the time of purchasing their lots and making lasting improvements thereon they relied on the designation of said addition as residential zoning as exclusive and irrevocable except for legal cause; that on April 9, 1957, the City council attempted to adopt amendatory ordinance No. 8020 with the emergency clause attached, which rezoned lots 12 and 13, Block 10, from 'A' Single Family Dwelling District to 'E' zone, local commercial district; That the Foundation has secured a building permit to erect a filling station on lots 12 and 13.
It was further alleged that on August 25, 1955, the amendatory zoning ordinance was submitted to the Planning Commission of Oklahoma City and was denied and on September 20, 1955, the City council unanimously voted against passage of the ordinance; that no cause or change of condition has occurred since then to justify the passage; that on March 5, 1957, a new petition was submitted and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend the petition be denied, but on April 9, 1957, the City council adopted such zoning ordinance No. 8020, against the unanimous recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Park Department.
It was further alleged the ordinance is invalid, unreasonable, unconscionable, capricious and contrary to the spirit and intent of the zoning laws in that: (a) it has no relation to the public safety, morals, health, general welfare or to the public interest; (b) the purported new 'zone' is not the result of any comprehensive or other scheme for improvement of zoning in the City; (c) the new 'zone' is for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Foundation's precedessor in title and is discriminatory; and (d) a filling station will be in law a 'nuisance per accidens'. That if the ordinance is enforced the plaintiffs will suffer irreparable loss, their property will depreciate in value and the same constitutes a taking of their property without due process of law in contravention of the constitution of the State of Oklahoma and the United States and they have no adequate remedy at law.
The City filed a general denial and alleged the ordinance is valid and enforceable. Foundation answered in the form of a general denial and also alleged the ordinance was regularly passed and is valid and enforceable; that the ordinance merely extends the 'E' local commercial district from the northwest corner and the southwest corner of the intersection of 16th and Meridian Avenue, which intersection is a junction of a section line and a half section line; that prior to the time any of plaintiffs purchased any property in the addition, the plat was vacated as to Block 10, and the same was not restricted to single dwellings but was in truth and in fact approved for business; that the ordinance is not unreasonable, discriminatory, invalid or unconstitutional.
To these answers the plaintiffs filed separate replies in the form of a general denial.
It is admitted, or not disputed that Meridian Avenue is a north and south section line and 16th street is a east and west half section line; lots 12 and 13 of Block 10, are on the northeast corner of the intersection of the two streets and approximately three and one-half acres in the northwest corner and approximately ten acres in the southwest corner of the intersection are zoned for business and this is an extension of that zoning ordinance; a park extends from 16th street south along the east side of Meridian. In 1955 it was recommended by the Planning Commission that the application for zoning the two lots for commercial purposes be denied and the recommendation was followed by the City council; that the Planning Commission and Park Commission also recommended denial of the application in 1957 but the City council did not follow the recommendation but allowed the application by passing ordinance No. 8020.
The testimony of the plaintiffs was to the effect every lot in the addition, except lots 12 and 13, are improved, the improvements consisting of single family brick dwellings with lawns, shrubs, flowers and trees, well cared for and tended; lots 12 and 13 have a defect in that there is an open storm sewer at the southwest corner; that the defect can be remedied with the expenditure of approximately $500; that both of the lots can be used for residential dwellings; that a filling station or any other commercial building placed on the lots would depreciate the value of their property from 10% to 20%; that it would cause additional traffic congestion and traffic hazard and make it dangerous for children to go to the park or play-ground on the south side of 16th street; that any business on said lots would create additional noise and disturbance both in the day time and at night, necessarily disturbing their rest at night; that a filling station would cause gasoline fumes and other odors to permeate the entire neighborhood.
The Director of Parks and Recreation testified the Park Commission had recommended the application for re-zoning be denied and that the placing of a business at the northeast corner would create a definite hazard for children using the park. A member of the Planning Commission in 1955 testified that the Commission unanimously recommended...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beattie v. STATE EX REL. GRDA
... ... BEATTIE and Walter R. Bailey, Jr., Plaintiffs/Appellants, ... STATE of Oklahoma, ex rel. GRAND RIVER DAM AUTHORITY, Defendant/Appellee ... No. 91,359 ... Supreme Court of ... 2 Id. at 332; See also Earth Products Co. v. Oklahoma City, 1968 OK 39, 441 P.2d 399, 404 ... This presumption of assignability is in keeping with a long ... Oklahoma City v. Barclay, 1960 OK 254, ¶ 16, 359 P.2d 237, ... ...
-
Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co. v. City of Oklahoma City
... ... 10 McAlester Urban Renewal Authority v. Lorince, 499 P.2d 925 (Okl.1972) [emphasis added] ... 11 Heisler v. Thomas, 651 P.2d at 1331 ("A zoning classification is fairly debatable if reasonable men could differ as to whether it is reasonable."); City of Oklahoma City v. Barclay, 359 P.2d 237, 239 (Okl.1960). Cf. City of Sand Springs v. Colliver, 434 at 190 ("[Z]oning ordinances are presumptively valid and not to be set aside unless clearly shown to be wrong by uncontroverted evidence."). But Cf. City of Tulsa v. Nicholas, 415 P.2d at 923 ... 12 Heisler v. Thomas, 651 ... ...
-
O'Rourke v. City of Tulsa
... ... Ira J. Dietrich and Other Persons Similarly Situated, ... Intervenors-Defendants in Error ... No. 42920 ... Supreme Court of Oklahoma ... July 22, 1969 ... Syllabus by the Court ... 1. The action of a municipality in enactment or amendment of a zoning ordinance, ... Hunzicker v. Pulliam, 168 Okl. 632, 37 P.2d 417, 96 A.L.R. 1294; Keaton v. Brown, 171 Okl. 38, 45 P.2d 109; Oklahoma City v. Barclay, Okl., 359 P.2d 237; Higginbotham v. City of the Village, Okl., 361 P.2d 191; City of Tulsa v. Swanson, Okl., 366 P.2d 629; City of Tulsa v ... ...
-
Suntide Inn Motel, Oklahoma City, Matter of, 50588
... ... The Legislature has specifically empowered cities to enact and enforce zoning regulations. 11 O.S.1971, § 401, et seq., Oklahoma City v. Barclay, Okl., 359 P.2d 237 (1961). Municipal zoning ordinances enacted pursuant to this statutory authority have the force of legislative enactments. Weaver v. Bishop, 174 Okl. 492, 52 P.2d 853 (1935). This zoning power is also a sovereign power, and in their exercise thereof, cities are 'equally ... ...