Parkrite Auto Park, Inc. v. Shea
| Decision Date | 16 February 1951 |
| Citation | 314 Ky. 520 |
| Parties | Parkrite Auto Park, Inc. v. Shea et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Action by Parkrite Auto Park, Inc., against James L. Shea, etc., and others, for declaration of rights and to compel issuance of permits authorizing plaintiff to construct and operate a parking lot in the city. The Circuit Court, Fayette County, Chester D. Adams, J., denied relief prayed for, and plaintiff appealed. The Court of Appeals, Clay, C., held that the city officials had arbitrarily denied plaintiff the permits to which it was entitled under the provisions of city zoning ordinance.
Judgment reversed.
1. Administrative Law and Procedure; Mandamus. — In action to compel city officials to issue permits authorizing applicant to construct and operate a parking lot, special demurrer by city officials would not be sustained on ground that applicant had not exhausted its administrative remedies before proceeding in court, when it was clear from reading of applicable statutes and city ordinances that applicant had no right of appeal to administrative body.
2. Mandamus. — In action to compel city officials to issue permits authorizing applicant to construct and operate a parking lot where petition alleged that applicant had filed proper plans and specifications with building inspector, general demurrer to petition on ground that applicant had not filed proper plans and specifications with building inspector could not be sustained, since allegations would have to be accepted rather than official's interpretation of what ordinance required.
3. Evidence. — Court would take judicial notice of the surrounding physical conditions near a proposed parking lot location.
4. Negligence. — A property owner has right lawfully to use his premises as he sees fit, unless such use will necessarily constitute an unreasonable invasion of his neighbor's rights.
5. Mandamus. — In action to compel city officials to issue permits authorizing applicant to construct and operate a parking lot in city, evidence was insufficient to justify finding that applicant's proposed parking lot would necessarily constitute a nuisance, notwithstanding that traffic congestion and hazards would be somewhat increased in area.
6. Municipal Corporations. — Where certain area was ordained by legislative body of city as one in which property could be used for parking lot purposes, and applicant applied to city building inspector for permit to operate a parking lot therein, and proposed use of property involved no violation of ordinance or regulations of city, or statutes of state, inspector and engineer could not arbitrarily refuse to issue proper permits on ground that location of parking lot would constitute a traffic hazard.
Scott Reed, Job D. Turner, Jr., and Fowler & Fowler for appellant.
Foster Ockerman for appellee.
Before Chester D. Adams, Judge.
CLAY, COMMISSIONER.
Reversing.
This action was brought for a declaration of rights, and to compel the issuance of permits by certain officials of the City of Lexington to appellant, authorizing it to construct and operate a parking lot in the city. The Chancellor refused to grant the relief prayed.
Appellant has leased a small parkway in front of the Union Station on Main Street in Lexington. Under the zoning ordinance of the city, a permissible use of that property is the operation of a parking lot. Pursuant to the terms of the ordinance, appellant applied to the City Building and License Inspector for the prescribed permit. It also made application to the City Engineer for a permit to cross the sidewalk with a driveway into the parking lot. Apparently the proposed use of the property involved no violation of any ordinances or regulations of the city, or the statutes of the state. However, the Inspector and Engineer refused to issue the proper permits on the ground that the location of the parking lot would constitute a traffic hazard and the City Manager had requested them to withhold the authorizations. Thereupon this suit was filed.
Appellees filed a special and general demurrer to appellant's petition, and the controversy was determined on the pleadings. The Chancellor took the view that somehow appellant had not come into court with clean hands; that the proposed parking lot would create a traffic hazard and constitute a nuisance; and that the proposed use of the property would be illegal and a violation of the rights of the public. The Chancellor's findings and conclusions were based almost entirely upon his personal knowledge of the physical conditions and the traffic problems in the City of...
To continue reading
Request your trial