Title: Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. City of Little Rock

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

420 S.W.2d 85 (1967) 243 Ark. 290 ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, Appellant, v. CITY OF LITTLE ROCK et al., Appellees. No. 5-4307. Supreme Court of Arkansas. October 23, 1967. Rehearing Denied November 27, 1967. *86 House, Holmes & Jewell, Little Rock, for appellant. Perry V. Whitmore, and Robinson, Thornton, McCloy & Young, Little Rock, for appellees. JONES, Justice. This is an appeal by the Arkansas Power & Light Company from an adverse judgment rendered by the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Third Division, on appeal to that court by the Power Company from an adverse decision of the Board of Adjustment of the City of Little Rock. By municipal ordinance, the City of Little Rock is zoned into fourteen use zones or districts, ranging from "A One-family district" to "K Heavy industrial district." By municipal ordinance any property, when newly annexed to the city, automatically falls into the "A One-family district" classification until a zoning plan of the area is prepared and adopted. Official Code of Ordinances of the City of Little Rock, Arkansas, § 43-28, subsection (d), adopted in 1937, and appearing in the record before us by stipulation, is as follows: In 1961 a large area of land along the south side of the Arkansas River, and west of the former city limits, was annexed by the City of Little Rock and automatically fell into the "A One-family district" classification. No affirmative action was taken by the Planning Commission and Board of Directors in zoning this newly annexed territory as provided in section 43-28 of the ordinance. The Little Rock zoning ordinances provide for a five member board of zoning adjustment with jurisdictional power to hear and grant requests for variances in the permissible use of property in a given use zone. Arkansas Power & Light has a franchise to furnish electric power to all of Little Rock including newly developed residential areas of western Little Rock, and including the newly annexed area south of the Arkansas River. Arkansas Power & Light transports its electric energy at high voltage, *87 through above ground wires or cables in the Little Rock area, and it becomes necessary throughout the transportation system, and at intervals along the transmission lines, to construct substations where the electric energy is transformed from the high voltage necessary in transporation to the low voltage necessary in safe distribution for domestic consumption. The electric energy, thus reduced in voltage, is delivered to the consumer through distribution lines radiating out from the substations, and can only be distributed in useful voltage within a limited radius of the substation. Thus it is necessary to have the substation near the center of the area to be served with electric energy through the substation. In 1965, Arkansas Power & Light acquired, by purchase, a substation site, consisting of approximately three acres, near the Arkansas River and within the territory annexed in 1961. Arkansas Power & Light applied to the Little Rock Board of Zoning Adjustment for permission to use its property for a substation site, and the application was refused and permission denied by the Board of Review. Arkansas Power & Light appealed to the Pulaski County Circuit Court, and several property owners along a bluff overlooking the Arkansas River, and the site of the proposed substation, intervened in opposition to the proposed use by Arkansas Power & Light. The circuit court also denied the power company's petition and Arkansas Power & Light has appealed to this court relying on the following points for reversal: We do not reach the first point relied on by the appellant, as we have concluded that the decision of the trial court must be reversed on the second point. This case presents a rather unique situation, in that it appears from the overall record, that the case may have been fully tried de novo on appeal to the circuit court, but it is quite clear that it was heard and considered by the trial court under the erroneous impression that the evidence was to be confined, and its considerations limited, to whether or not there was any substantial evidence to support the ruling of the Board of Adjustment or whether the ruling of the Board was arbitrary or capricious. The following excerpts from the rulings on admissibility of evidence throughout the trial leave no doubt as to the court's impression on this point. There is no evidence in the record that this erroneous conception was pointed out to the court during the trial of the case and there is no affirmative evidence that either party was prejudiced by the error, but after taking the matter under advisement on briefs, the court directed a letter to the attorneys as follows: A precedent for judgment was prepared which contained the following language: This precedent was approved, as to form, by the attorney for the appellant, Power & Light Co. and the attorney for the appellee, Board of Adjustment, but it was not approved by the attorney for the intervening appellees and was not signed by the trial court and entered of record. The judgment that was signed by the trial court was approved as to form by the attorney for the appellee, Board of Review, and the attorney for the intervening appellees, but was not approved by an attorney for the appellant. The judgment signed by the trial court and appealed from simply recites: This being the state of the record, we have no way of knowing whether any party to this litigation would have offered any additional, less, or different evidence than was offered, had they known the evidence was being accepted and would be considered on the merits of the case in a trial de novo, rather than in determining whether or not there was any substantial evidence to sustain the decision of the Board of Review, or whether the action of the Board of Review was arbitrary or capricious in denying the petition. The ordinance setting up the Board of Review and defining its authority provides for appeal to the circuit court in the following language: We do not imply that a municipal ordinance can limit the venue or restrict the scope of inquiry in matters on appeal from municipal departments, but in any *89 event, this case was appealed to the circuit court. Upon appeal from the circuit court, we do not try the case de novo, but only review the errors assigned. Fidelity Deposit Company v. Fairfield, 169 Ark. 997, 278 S.W. 658. The circuit court does, however, try cases de novo on appeal from a municipal Board of Adjustment. Ark.Stat. Ann. § 19-2830.1 (Supp.1965). This point was very recently settled in the case of City of Little Rock v. Leawood Property Owners Association, 242 Ark. 451, 413 S.W.2d 877, wherein we said: and in that case we held as follows: For the reasons stated, we reverse this case and remand it to the trial court for a new trial, to the end that any party hereto may offer such competent evidence as may be desired on a trial de novo. We might add, however, that if it were not for the recited error of the trial court, we might well reverse this case on the evidence now before us. Reversed and remanded. BYRD, J., disqualified.