Court Opinion

ID: 9773381
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:43:53.954051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:46.867364
License: Public Domain

John Norman Harkey, Special Justice. The Little Rock Planning Commission disapproved a subdivision application submitted by Robert Richardson. An appeal of this decision to circuit court was unsuccessful. The circuit judge concluded that certain technical violations (which presumably would have been corrected in the final plat) were not the basis for the denial, and then ruled that the Commission had discretionary authority to disapprove. This is a case of first impression in Arkansas, insofar as it relates to the discretionary authority of planning commissions, and that it is a difficult case is evidenced by the division among members of this court. The issue is whether a planning commission has discretionary power to disapprove a subdivision plat which meets minimum requirements set forth in the subdivision ordinance.  Article 2, Section 22, of the Arkansas Constitution, provides that the right of property is before and higher than any other constitutional sanction. This does not mean, however, that an individual is constitutionally guaranteed the right to do with such property as he or she wishes in all circumstances. Obviously, the police power and health and welfare doctrines clearly permit restrictions on property use so as to prevent detriment to the rights of the public. McCammon v. Boyer, 285 Ark. 288, 686 S.W.2d 421 (1985). We have frequently held that the private use of property can be restricted by zoning regulations. See, e.g., Winderoth v. City of Fort Smith, 251 Ark. 342, 472 S.W.2d 74 (1971).  A planning commission is not a legislative body but functions in an administrative capacity and derives its authority from the legislature. City of Paragould v. Leath, 266 Ark. 390, 583 S.W.2d 76 (1979); and Arkansas Power and Light Co. v. City of Little Rock, 243 Ark. 290, 420 S.W.2d 85 (1967). The enabling legislation, Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-417 (1987), provides in pertinent part: Following adoption and filing of a master street plan, the commission may prepare and shall administer, after approval of the legislative body, regulations controlling the development of land. . . . The regulations controlling the development of land may establish or provide for the minimum requirements as to information to be included on the plat filed for record; the design and layout of the subdivision, including standards for lots and blocks, street rights of way, street and utility grades, and other similar items; the standards for improvements to be installed by the developer at his own expense, such as street grading and paving, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, water, storm and sewer mains, street lighting and other amenities. [Emphasis added.] Once the Planning Commission has exercised its authority in drafting regulations pertaining to subdivision development, it is bound by those regulations and “shall administer” them. The Commission is guided by standards which can be uniformly applied and which give notice to subdividers of the minimum requirements with which they must comply in order to obtain approval. Smith v. City of Mobile, 374 So. 2d 305 (Ala. 1979).  We agree with the appellant that the Planning Commission exceeded its authority when it denied approval of the preliminary plat on considerations other than the minimum standards set forth in the subdivision ordinance. When a subdivision ordinance specifies minimum standards to which a preliminary plat must conform, it is arbitrary as a matter of law to deny approval of a plat that meets those standards. Odell v. City of Eagan, 384 N.W.2d 792 (Minn. App. 1984). Accordingly, if the plat is within the use permitted by the zoning classification and meets the development regulations set forth in the subdivision ordinance, then the plat by definition is in “harmony” with the existing subdivisions. A primary purpose of these provisions is to ensure that a landowner’s plat will be objectively measured against the concrete standards of the subdivision ordinance in effect. Thus, these provisions balance the interests of planned community growth with the private rights of landowners. Reynolds v. City Council of Longmont, 680 P.2d 1350 (Colo. App. 1984); RK Dev. Corp. v. City of Norwalk, 156 Conn. 369, 242 A.2d 781 (1968); and Dosmann v. Area Plan Comm’n of St. Joseph County, 160 Ind. App. 605, 312 N.E.2d 880 (1974). The record clearly demonstrates that appellee denied approval of the plat based upon considerations not authorized by the ordinance. Pursuant to the subdivision ordinance Section 37.14(e)(3), appellant received a letter setting forth two reasons for denial: (1) Proximity of a proposed cul-de-sac to the adjacent lots and (2) Marginal development potential of the land, resulting in unusual lot shapes and means for access. The final plat submission from which appellant appeals does not contain a culde-sac, and the subdivision ordinance does not contain the term “marginal development potential.” In fact, there is testimony to the effect that the term “marginal development potential” was formulated ad hoc as a reason for denying appellant’s plat.  In short, a planning commission may not disregard the regulations set forth in the subdivision ordinance and substitute its own discretion in lieu of fixed standards applying to all cases similarly situated. RK Dev. Corp., 156 Conn. 369, 242 A.2d 781. A planning commission is authorized and required to determine whether a plat presented is in compliance with the particular subdivision regulations. Once compliance is had, no discretionary power to disapprove exists. To rule otherwise would sublimate objective requirements, and instead substitute subjective thinking by individual members of a particular planning commission. This was never contemplated by the law. We reverse. Glaze, J., concurs, Hickman, Dudley and Newbern, JJ., dissent, Hays, J., not participating.