Board of Adjustment ex rel. City of San Antonio v. Kennedy
410 S.W.3d 31
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Trinity, a private university, owns four houses on Oakmont Court in Monte Vista, San Antonio, originally zoned A Single Family with college use permitted.
- In 2001, City adopted Unified Development Code changing zoning to R-5, making private colleges nonconforming and potentially allowing nonconforming rights.
- In 2010, Trinity sought rezoning to R-5S for private-university use; after staff report recognizing nonconforming rights, Trinity withdrew the rezoning and sought certificates of occupancy for office use.
- Monte Vista homeowners appealed the COs; a settlement was reached with most homeowners, but five homeowners pursued the appeal.
- Board did not overturn the COs; five homeowners challenged Board’s decision in district court, which granted summary judgment for homeowners and overturned the Board’s decision.
- Court must determine whether Trinity’s use of the houses in 2001 as faculty residences/offices was a lawful “college” use and whether nonconforming rights/ DPR apply, affecting CO and registration requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board abused its discretion in treating the 2001 use as a valid college use. | Homeowners: use must be lawful; 2001 use as residences/offices not clearly a college use. | Trinity: faculty residences and offices fall within college use, entitling nonconforming rights. | Board could reasonably find a college use; not an abuse of discretion. |
| Whether Trinity’s use was lawful without COs/registration. | Use not lawful if COs or registration were required; no COs for nonresidential use. | Nonconforming college use did not require COs/registration under Code sections; testimony supported college use. | Use could be lawful as a college use without COs/registration. |
| Whether Trinity’s use as faculty residences qualifies as a college use under DPR and registration rules. | DPR/registration requirements may bar expansion of nonconforming use if not properly registered. | Faculty residence is encompassed by college use; DPR allows expansion; registration not mandatory within three years. | Faculty residence constitutes college use; DPR supports continuation/expansion; registration not required. |
| Whether the Board properly applied nonconforming-use definitions and allowed continued rights under 2001 Code. | If not lawfully established, nonconforming rights cannot attach. | Use was lawfully established as college use; appropriate rights attach. | Use entitled to nonconforming rights as college use; Board enforcement not illegal. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Barber, 982 S.W.2d 364 (Tex.1998) (board not abuse its discretion when evidence supports its decision)
- City of Dallas v. Vanesko, 189 S.W.3d 769 (Tex.2006) (trial court reviews legality de novo; board’s order presumed legal)
- City of Alamo Heights v. Boyar, 158 S.W.3d 545 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 2005) (board abuse of discretion defined; substantial evidence standard used)
- Christopher Columbus Street Market LLC v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustments of the City of Galveston, 302 S.W.3d 408 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2009) (reviewing court deferential to board where evidence supports decision)
- Gilbert Tex. Const., L.P. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s London, 327 S.W.3d 118 (Tex.2010) (standard for summary judgments and de novo review clarified)