City of Little Rock v. Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church
Docket: 5-3970
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; October 17, 1966; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, addressed an appeal concerning a petition for re-zoning properties owned by appellees on the north side of West Markham Street in Little Rock, near the intersection with Jackson Street. The owners aimed to sell their properties to Texaco Oil Company for a service station, but the city zoning designated the area as “B” Residential District. The Board of Directors of Little Rock denied the re-zoning petition, aligning with the Planning Commission's stance. Upon appeal, the Pulaski County Chancery Court determined that the city acted arbitrarily in its denial, prohibiting the city from obstructing the appellees' use of the properties under “F” Commercial zoning and mandating the issuance of a building permit for compliant construction.
The appellant contends that the Chancery Court erred in its judgment. Testimony revealed that Faith Evangelical Lutheran Church, located at the intersection, experienced significant membership growth, prompting plans for a new church, which necessitated selling the current property to Texaco. Nearby property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Oliver Henry and Ivan H. Smith, supported the re-zoning. Smith recounted that the neighborhood evolved from residential to commercial, with several properties along West Markham already zoned for commercial use. He noted a significant increase in traffic and noise after street widening, affecting his quality of life. Smith successfully gathered petition signatures from the neighborhood, with only two refusals, indicating community support for the re-zoning.
Mr. Smith indicated that mercury lights installed on Markham create constant brightness, prompting him to install heavy draperies to block the light. Realtor and appraiser James H. Larrison testified that the current zoning is inappropriate due to increasing traffic on Markham Street, noting that a study would be necessary to identify the highest compatible use of the church property, but conversion to a single-family residence is unfeasible. Real estate appraiser Russell McLean mentioned the presence of desirable homes nearby, particularly in the Brickton Place subdivision, and asserted that designating the church property as a service station would negatively impact surrounding residential areas. He opined that office use, such as a doctor's or insurance office, would be the highest compatible use, agreeing with Larrison that single-family residential development is not economically viable. W. D. Kelly, a resident of Brickton Place, opposed the re-zoning for a service station. City Planning Director Henry DeNoble suggested re-zoning to “E-1” Quiet Business, aligning with residential use, and concurred with Larrison and McLean that “B” Residential is unsuitable. DeNoble warned that re-zoning to “F” Commercial could lead to commercial expansion along West Markham Street, which has been successfully contained at Van Buren by the “E-1” classification. The appellees presented a Federal Housing Administration report denying mortgage insurance due to concerns over commercial encroachment and traffic safety. The court's prior decision to reject the city's refusal to re-zone to “F” Commercial was challenged, emphasizing that while the West Markham location is not ideal for residential use due to traffic, the repercussions of re-zoning on surrounding properties must also be evaluated. The intersection of Jackson Street and West Markham was deemed a proper boundary to separate residential and commercial properties, and though the church building is inadequate for the congregation's growth, this does not necessitate re-zoning to “F” Commercial, as no appraisers supported it as the best use for the properties.
Mr. Larrison testified that the church properties were unsuitable for single-family residences and required further study to determine their highest compatible use. Mr. McLean and Mr. DeNoble agreed that the church property would best serve as clinics or offices, supporting the classification of “E-1” Quiet Business, as it effectively buffers residential and commercial zones. The document emphasizes that in rezoning cases, the welfare of the entire community must be prioritized over individual interests. It references prior case law (Downs v. City of Little Rock) that mandates consideration of the area's overall composition, noting that nearby regions are predominantly residential. The Planning Commission has dedicated significant effort to establish a long-term zoning program for the city. If the church property were re-zoned to “F” Commercial, neighboring properties would likely seek the same classification, leading to broader implications. The refusal of the City of Little Rock to grant the “F” Commercial re-zoning is deemed non-arbitrary, while the court's earlier decision to allow it is considered erroneous. The evidence suggests that “E-1” Quiet Business is the appropriate classification, though there has been no formal recommendation or application for this change. The zoning situation is detailed, indicating various classifications along several streets, with Brickton Place noted as a nearby residential subdivision. The court's decision is reversed.
