Preston v. City of Stillwater
| Decision Date | 04 April 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 40954,40954 |
| Citation | 428 P.2d 215 |
| Parties | Liberty B. PRESTON, Administratrix of the Estate of Joe L. Preston, Deceased, and Rex E. Stockard, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The CITY OF STILLWATER, a Municipal Corporation, Warren B. Cooke, Commissioner-Mayor, Larry Hansen, Edward C. Burris, Ruben Jay and Robert R. Randolph, Commissioners of the City of Stillwater, a Municipal Corporation, Defendants in Error. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a zoning ordinance is challenged, it is the function of the court to determine whether there is a reasonable basis for the action of the zoning authorities, and if the reasonableness of the ordinance is fairly debatable, the legislative determination must not be disturbed.
2. The classification of city property for zoning purposes is primarily a matter to be determined by legislative body of a city whose judgment expressed in a particular case should not be overridden by the judiciary unless it is unreasonable, arbitrary, or constitutes an unequal exercise of police power.
Appeal from the District Court of Payne County; R. L. Hert, Judge.
Action by Joe L. Preston and Rex E. Stockard as plaintiffs against The City of Stillwater, a Municipal Corporation, Warren B. Cooke, Commissioner-Mayor; Larry Hansen, Edward C. Burris; Ruben Jay and Robert R. Randolph, Commissioners of the City of Stillwater, a Municipal Corporation, as defendants, to re-zone certain lots in the City of Stillwater. Judgment for defendants denying re-zoning. Joe L. Preston passed away, and the case proceeded with Liberty B. Preston, Administratrix of the Estate of Joe L. Preston, Deceased, and Rex E. Stockard as plaintiffs. Judgment was for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.
Hoel & Horton, Stillwater, for plaintiffs in error.
James M. Springer, Jr., Everett E. Berry, Stillwater, for defendants in error.
Parties occupy the same positions here as in the trial court and will be so referred to hereafter.
The particular property involved in this action includes Lots 2, 3 and 4 of Block 5, a sub-division of certain blocks in McFarland Heights Addition to the City of Stillwater, Oklahoma. Two of the lots were seventy-five feet by one hundred and forty feet, and one lot was seventy-six by one hundred and forty feet. These lots face north on Sixth Street which is also State Highway 51. The block is bounded on the west by Western Street and on the east by Ridge Road and on the south by Seventh Avenue. All of this block is vacant except the lots immediately east of the lots involved here upon which is located a gasoline bulk station which was an existing non-conforming use at the time the Annexing Ordinance Number 885 was adopted. There was a residence erected on Lot 7 in Block 5 in this sub-division. It lies due south of Lot 2 of Block 5 and faces on Seventh Street. It is significant that when Ordinance No. 885 was adopted it provided that all land brought into the City of Stillwater by this ordinance should be residential property.
The property across the street and to the north of Block 5 is residential for several blocks north and the same to the south and to the east. There is business to the west. To the northwest is farm land used by Oklahoma State University for experimental farming. There was evidence offered on both sides as to the possible use of these particular lots and the block and the surrounding area. To be sure, it was conflicting. Some witnesses for the plaintiffs testified that it would never be suitable for residential purposes and was only suitable for commercial use, and that the damage to the surrounding area would be minimal. The witnesses for defendants took the opposing view and thought to permit these lots to be used for commercial purposes would seriously damage the residential areas in that part of the city, especially that across the street to the north and the balance of the block in which the lots in question are located and to the south of that block.
The plaintiffs raise two points for reversal of this case. The first is that the trial court erred in refusing and ruling out competent and legal evidence on the part of plaintiffs in error, and the second is that the trial court erred in rendering...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co. v. City of Oklahoma City
...legislative determination by the City ... is 'fairly debatable' and is not subject to disturbance by the courts."); Preston v. City of Stillwater, 428 P.2d 215 (Okl.1967).13 Bevridge v. Harper & Turner Oil Trust, 168 Okl. at 609, 35 P.2d 435.14 Dawson Enterprises, Inc. v. Blaine County, 98 ......
-
O'Rourke v. City of Tulsa
...Okl., 366 P.2d 629; City of Tulsa v. Nicholas, Okl., 415 P.2d 917; Botchlett v. City of Bethany, Okl., 416 P.2d 613; Preston v. City of Stillwater, Okl., 428 P.2d 215. We have consistently held that a person aggrieved by the action of the City Commission in passing upon an application for c......
-
Griffith Realty Co. v. City of Oklahoma City, 64987
...Garrett v. City of Oklahoma City, 594 P.2d 764 (Okl.1979); City of the Village v. McCown, 446 P.2d 380 (Okl.1968); Preston v. City of Stillwater, 428 P.2d 215 (Okl.1967); City of Tulsa v. Nichols, 385 P.2d 816 (Okl.1963); Oklahoma City v. Barclay, 359 P.2d 237 (Okl.1961); City of Tulsa v. S......
-
Garrett v. City of Oklahoma City
...(Okl.1961); City of Tulsa v. Nicholas, 415 P.2d 917 (Okl.1966); City of Village v. McCown, 446 P.2d 380 (Okl.1968).9 Preston v. City of Stillwater, 428 P.2d 215 (Okl.1967). ...