Court Opinion

ID: 9676313
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:21:43.748624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:47.606624
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. When a proposed zoning change is denied, not because of its adverse effect on neighboring property but because of its adverse effect on traffic or a comprehensive land use plan, it is my position that the denial of the zoning request is not for zoning purposes but for a PUBLIC USE contrary to Ark. Const. Art. 2 § 22 which provides: “The right of property is before and higher than any constitutional sanction; and private property shall not be taken, appropriated or damaged for public use, without just compensation therefor.” I can find no evidence in the record here to substantiate a finding that the zoning here requested will adversely affect neighboring properties. To the contrary all of the neighboring property owners that appeared testified in favor of the zoning request. The majority also suggests that appellant is left with alternative uses but here again it appears that they are merely speculating. The proof was that the property was not suitable for apartments and there is a total absence of proof that any of the other suggested uses would be economically feasible. For the reasons stated, I respectfully dissent.