City of Bethel Heights, Ark. v. City of Springdale
2017 Ark. App. 81
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Gregory A. Kendrick and the Kendrick Revocable Living Trust owned ~87–88 acres originally inside Bethel Heights; they detached the property from Bethel Heights and it was annexed by Springdale under Act 779 (2015).
- Springdale adopted ordinances annexing the property and rezoning it from agricultural to industrial; Bethel Heights sued seeking declaratory and injunctive relief claiming the rezoning was incompatible with adjacent Bethel Heights zoning under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-306.
- Springdale moved to dismiss the declaratory-judgment claim, arguing Arkansas Code Ann. § 14-56-425(b) provides the exclusive procedure to challenge municipal legislative rezoning decisions; the circuit court granted the motion and said the case would proceed under § 14-56-425(b).
- The circuit court made a collateral factual finding that Springdale’s rezoning was not arbitrary or capricious but left the parties able to present additional evidence; Springdale then moved for summary judgment on the merits.
- Springdale submitted affidavits and evidence showing an adjacent parcel in Bethel Heights was zoned industrial, supporting compatibility under § 14-56-306; Bethel Heights submitted evidence raising procedural and substantive objections (spot zoning, contract zoning, property-value harm) but did not meet proof with proof on the compatibility element.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Springdale; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding dismissal of the declaratory-judgment vehicle was proper and that Springdale was entitled to summary judgment because Bethel Heights failed to raise a genuine issue on compatibility.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper procedural vehicle to challenge rezoning | Bethel Heights used declaratory judgment to void rezoning under § 14-56-306 | Springdale: § 14-56-425(b) is the exclusive statutory remedy for judicial review of legislative rezoning | Court: Dismissal of declaratory-judgment claim was proper; review proceeds under § 14-56-425(b) |
| Premature factual finding by circuit court | Court should not have found rezoning was not arbitrary/capricious before an evidentiary hearing | Springdale: collateral finding did not deprive Bethel Heights of chance to present evidence | Court: Finding harmless; Bethel Heights was allowed to introduce evidence and suffered no prejudice |
| Whether rezoning was compatible with adjacent Bethel Heights zoning (merits) | Rezoning incompatible; raises procedural defects, spot/contract zoning, and harm to neighboring properties | Springdale: Evidence shows adjacent Bethel Heights parcel was zoned industrial, so rezoning was compatible under § 14-56-306 | Court: Springdale established prima facie compatibility; Bethel Heights failed to meet proof with proof on that element—summary judgment affirmed |
| Preservation of other challenges (spot/contract/procedural) | Raised below but argues on appeal | Springdale: Circuit court did not rule on those theories | Court: Those arguments were not ruled on by circuit court and are not preserved for appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park, Inc., 323 Ark. 332, 916 S.W.2d 95 (1996) (sets standard for review of legislative zoning: deference and presumption of reasonableness)
- City of Little Rock v. Breeding, 273 Ark. 437, 619 S.W.2d 664 (1981) (zoning enactment not arbitrary if any reasonable basis exists)
- City of Little Rock v. Pfeifer, 318 Ark. 679, 887 S.W.2d 296 (1994) (definitions of arbitrary and capricious)
- PH, LLC v. City of Conway, 2009 Ark. 504, 344 S.W.3d 660 (2009) (appellate standard for reviewing legislative rezoning decisions)
- Chandler v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 2016 Ark. App. 372, 498 S.W.3d 766 (2016) (plaintiff must meet proof with proof to defeat summary judgment)
- Bushong v. Garman Co., 311 Ark. 228, 843 S.W.2d 807 (1992) (same principle on summary-judgment burden)
- Harrisburg Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. Neal, 2011 Ark. 233, 381 S.W.3d 811 (summary-judgment standard)