429 S.W.3d 267
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Cowan applied to the Capitol Zoning District Commission for a permit to repair the roof, install three security cameras, and erect a 48-inch fence around the Augustus Garland House in Little Rock.
- The Commission granted the cameras and roof repair permit but denied the fence after review and a staff report recommending a 40-inch limit on the north and east sides.
- The Design Review Committee and Mansion Area Advisory Committee adopted the 40-inch recommendation; Cowan did not attend those meetings.
- A March 31, 2011 hearing by the full Commission resulted in a 3-2 vote to deny the 48-inch fence; the record notes two votes against and three in favor.
- Cowan filed a petition for review; the circuit court reversed the Commission, and the Commission appealed, challenging the circuit court’s ruling and defending the authority to apply Rehabilitation Standards to individual properties.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R1.8 is mandatory or advisory for fence height | Cowan: R1.8 is a mandatory ban on 48-inch fences. | Commission: R1.8 is a guideline, not a hard rule, allowing discretionary application. | R1.8 is advisory/guideline; Commission may apply discretion. |
| Whether substantial evidence supported the denial | Cowan: evidence insufficient; 48-inch fence acceptable. | Commission: substantial, including staff report and historical context. | There was substantial evidence supporting the denial. |
| Whether the Commission acted arbitrarily or capriciously | Cowan: decision not supported by a standard; arbitrary. | Decision grounded in R1.8, staff findings, and historical context. | Not arbitrary or capricious; supported by substantial evidence. |
| Whether the Commission had authority to apply Rehabilitation Standards to determine consent | Cowan: standards are non-mandatory; cannot dictate outcome. | Standards are guidelines adopted as regulations and guiding the decision. | Commission has authority to apply Rehabilitation Standards in its discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Ark. State Bd. of Physical Therapy, 353 Ark. 778 (2003) (substantial evidence and administrative-review standards)
- Barnes v. Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin., 2012 Ark. App. 237, 419 S.W.3d 20 (2012) (agency decisions reviewed for substantial evidence; not arbitrary)
- Reed v. Arvis Harper Bail Bonds, Inc., 2010 Ark. 338, 368 S.W.3d 69 (2010) (administrative-law standards; substantial evidence)
- Wright v. Ark. State Plant Bd., 311 Ark. 125, 842 S.W.2d 42 (1992) (administrative decisions reviewed under substantial-evidence standard)