CLOSEClose Law.com Menu
 
X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Click here for the full text of this decision FACTS:Appellee Hyde Park Baptist Church sued appellant the city of Austin over the city’s decision to suspend a site-development permit that would have allowed the church to construct a parking garage on church property. The permit was suspended by the Austin city council after the church’s neighbors complained that the parking garage would not comply with an area-specific ordinance enacted in 1990 to govern development of the church’s property. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the church, finding that the city council had no authority to hear the appeal and that the permit complied with the applicable ordinance, and the city appealed. The church owns several tracts of property in the area of central Austin known as Hyde Park. The property is zoned SF-3. Generally, construction on property zoned SF-3 is subject to a 45 percent impervious-cover limitation under the city’s Land Development Code (LDC). The LDC’s limitations are, however, subject to modification. The tract in question is bounded north and south by 40th and 39th Streets, east and west by Speedway and Avenue D. The church’s efforts to expand its facilities have been a source of contention with its neighbors for many years. In 1990, in an effort to resolve the long-standing disagreement, the city arranged meetings between members of the Hyde Park Neighborhood Association and the church. Among the many issues discussed was the church’s need for more parking. The parties came to a mediated resolution, which in 1990 was incorporated by the city into an ordinance known as the “Hyde Park Conservation and Combining District No. 1″ (the “Hyde Park NCCD”). Austin, Tex., Code of Ordinances No. 900830-Q (1990). The Hyde Park NCCD modified the site-development standards applicable to the church’s property and authorized, among other things, a multi-storied parking facility “on all or a portion of the western half of [T]ract 2″ within the applicable setback lines. In 2000, the church filed an application with the Director of the Planning and Development Department for a site-development permit to construct the parking garage on the western half of Tract 2. After the Director approved the permit, the association and other “interested parties” filed “Site Plan Appeal[s],” alleging that the site plan, specifically the size of the proposed parking garage, did not comply with the Hyde Park NCCD and the city’s LDC. The church argued that under the Hyde Park NCCD it had the right to build the parking garage on the entire western half of Tract 2 subject only to the setback and height restrictions. Opponents argued that the property was still subject to the LDC and its impervious-cover limitations. The city council heard the appeals and then suspended the church’s permit. The church sued the city, challenging the city council’s authority to hear the appeals and claiming that the permit issued by the Director complied with the Hyde Park NCCD. Both parties moved for summary judgment, advancing different readings of the NCCD: the city argued that the city council had the authority to entertain the appeals and that the permit suspension was justified; the church argued that there was no statutory authority for the council to hear the appeals and that the suspension was unjustified. The district court granted the church’s motion for summary judgment on four grounds: 1. the city council lacked authority to entertain the neighbors’ appeals of the church’s site-development permit; 2. the church’s site-development plan met the applicable administrative standards; 3. the language of the Hyde Park NCCD allowed the church to construct a parking garage on “all or a portion of” the tract following the “height limits and setback requirements specified in the NCCD”; and 4. the “language in the NCCD setting out the development standards for the parking garage” was unambiguous. HOLDING:Affirmed. The court believes it is clear that when the Hyde Park NCCD granted the church the right to construct a parking garage “on all or a portion of the western half of Tract 2,” absent some indication to the contrary, the word “all” served to fix the amount of surface area and, in doing so, modified the usual impervious-cover limitations placed on property zoned SF-3. The court finds that Part 3(f) is clear and unambiguous and sets out all the criteria necessary to determine the size of the parking facility. Use of the entire western half of the tract for a parking garage is limited only by the height and setback restrictions, which serve to confine the garage to a certain portion of the tract. This interpretation is consistent with the rest of the Hyde Park NCCD. OPINION:Puryear, J.; Law, C.J., Patterson and Puryear, JJ.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.