Reinkes WIN In City of Glen Rose's Appeal Against Them in City of Glen Rose v Reinke


 
More technically, City of Glen Rose LOSES their appeal

Reinkes WIN In City of Glen Rose's Appeal Against Them in City of Glen Rose v Reinke
 


12 February 2016 at 10:25:00 AM
salon

specifically "City of Glen Rose, Texas and the Zoning Board of Adjustments of the City of Glen Rose, Texas v. Ernest and Shirley Reinke". To be technical, the Reinkes won their case against City of Glen Rose in the trial court, the City of Glen Rose decided to lodge an appeal, and the City of Glen Rose has lost the appeal. 

The next question is, who will be paying all the court costs, attorney fees, etc for the Reinkes? 

Background

Memorandum

Selected bits (highlighting is mine) 

Abuse of Discretion Next, the City and the ZBA contend that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the writ and ordering that they issue a certificate of occupancy because the proposed use likened to a “sanitarium,” as opposed to a “hospital” or “convalescent center.” This distinction allegedly is of import since a sanitarium cannot be operated at the locale in question but only in an industrial area. We overrule the issue. Our review of the dispute is controlled by § 211.011 of the Texas Local Government Code. Pearce v. City of Round Rock, 78 S.W.3d 642, 646 (Tex. App.— Austin 2002, pet. denied). It provides that “a person aggrieved by a decision” of the zoning board of adjustment, “a taxpayer,” or “an officer, department, board, or bureau of the municipality” may present to a district court “a verified petition stating that the decision of the board . . . is illegal in whole or in part and specifying the grounds of the illegality.” TEX. LOCAL GOV. CODE ANN. § 211.011(a)(1)-(3) (West 2008). The only question the trial court has in such a proceeding is deciding “the legality of the zoning board’s order.” City of Dallas v. Vanesko, 189 S.W.3d 769, 771 (Tex. 2006). Furthermore, an order is illegal when the party attacking it “. . . present[s] a ‘very clear showing of abuse of discretion.’” Id., quoting, City of San Angelo v. Boehme Bakery, 144 Tex. 281, 190 S.W.2d 67, 71 (Tex. 1945). And, discretion is abused when the board acted “. . . without reference to any guiding rules and principles or clearly fails to analyze or apply the law correctly.” Id. In making the requisite determination, the reviewing court cannot substitute its own judgment for that of the board with respect to the board’s factual findings. Id. However, legal conclusions made by the zoning board are not entitled to similar deference since they undergo de novo review. Id.

The decision to deny the applications was based upon the City Administrator’s conclusion that the use to which the property would be put was more akin to a “Sanitarium.” That is, he recognized that the property was located in a B-2 zoning district and that within a B-2 zoning district, one may operate both a convalescent center and hospital. Further acknowledged was that the local zoning ordinance defined a “Convalescent Center” as “[a]ny building or structure used for or customarily occupied by persons recovering from illness or suffering from infirmities of age” and a “Hospital” as “[a]n institution or place where sick or injured patients are kept overnight and given medical or surgical care.” If the “new business” fell within either category, then the happenstance “would make [the B-2 designation] eligible for your property,” he continued. Having so represented, he then conceded that 1) “[a]n institution or place where sick or injured patients are kept overnight and given medical care does seem to apply to this case” and 2) “[w]here the recovering from illness may apply the suffering from infirmities of age does not clearly apply to your proposed business.” 2 (Emphasis added). In other words, the proposed business had the characteristics of both a “Convalescent Center” and “Hospital” as expressly defined by the City. Given that, the Reinkes property was eligible for a B-2 zoning designation and the desired certificate of occupancy should have been issued.

We are reminded of that old idiom that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it is a duck. The proposed use of the property in question looked, swam, and quacked like a “Hospital” and “Convalescent Center,” as the City itself defined those words. Its administrator (who was initially charged with addressing the application) acknowledged as much. So, it can be said that the trial court did that which the City Administrator and the ZBA should have done, that is, it ordered the issuance of the certificate of occupancy under the B-2 designation.

As previously indicated, though, the City and the ZBA would have us defer to its determination that while the business use fell into the categories of “Hospital” and “Convalescent Center,” it really was a “Sanitarium” under the zoning ordinance and unentitled to a B-2 designation. Unlike the terms “Hospital” and “Convalescent Center,” though, the City had not defined the word “Sanitarium.” Due to this circumstance, the City Administrator turned to the internet to garner a definition of the word. Upon doing so, he then informed the Reinkes, when denying their application, that: “The online research of the definition of Sanitarium says: 1. An institution for the treatment of chronic diseases or for medically supervised recuperation [and] 2. A resort for improvement or maintenance of health, especially for convalescents.” (Emphasis in original). In comparing his internet definitions of “Sanitarium” to the definitions of “Hospital” and “Convalescent Center” expressed in the ordinance, one immediately sees a remarkable identity between them. All three encompass the treatment of and recovery from illness and the provision of medical care. Indeed, this similarity led the City and the ZBA to concede in the appellant's brief that “Sanitarium” comes within the penumbra of “Hospital” and “Convalescent Center.” 3 So, despite satisfying the elements contained in the zoning ordinance's definition of “Hospital” and “Convalescent Center,” a business that can be also placed within the undefined label of “sanitarium” can be denied a B-2 zoning designation, according to the City and its Administrator. We disagree.

Ordinances are construed under the same rules of construction applicable to interpreting statutes. Board of Adjustment of San Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d 424, 430 (Tex. 2002); Town of Annetta South v. Seadrift Dev., L.P., 446 S.W.3d 823, 825 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2014, pet. denied). What they mean is a question of law. McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d 741, 745 (Tex. 2003); West Tex. Water Refiners v. S & B Beverage Co., 915 S.W.2d 623, 628 (Tex. App.—El Paso 1996, no pet.). Thus, we may construe ordinances de novo; that is, we are not bound by the interpretation given it by the city officials. McIntyre v. Ramirez, 109 S.W.3d at 745.

Next, one rule of statutory construction tells us that we should not assign a meaning to a statutory provision that is inconsistent with other provisions. Board of Adjustment of San Antonio v. Wende, 92 S.W.3d at 430-31. Another tells us that undefined terms are typically given their ordinary or plain meaning. Greater Houston Partnership v. Paxton, 468 S.W.3d 51, 58 (Tex. 2015). Yet, we must not accord an “‘undefined term a meaning that is out of harmony or inconsistent with other terms in the statute.’” Id., quoting, State v. $1,760.00 in U.S. Currency, 406 S.W.3d 177, 180 (Tex. 2013). Nor may the plain meaning be assigned if it would lead to an absurd result. City of Houston v. Bates, 406 S.W.3d 539, 544 (Tex. 2013). Finally, ordinances regulating land use are ordinances in derogation of rights afforded landowners under the common law, and, as such, they are strictly construed against the municipality and in favor of the landowner. Town of Annetta South v. Seadrift Dev. L.P., 446 S.W.3d at 825-26; City of Grand Prairie v. Finch, 294 S.W.2d 851, 854 (Tex. Civ. App.—Dallas 1956, no writ) (involving a zoning ordinance purporting to bar the operation of a nursery in a single family dwelling).

Again, we have before us a zoning ordinance expressly defining the terms “Hospital” and “Convalescent Center” as structures used or occupied by sick, injured or older people 1) needing to recuperate and 2) receiving medical or surgical care who remain for some duration and at least overnight. If the property use falls within those categories, then they are permissible at the locale in question.

On the other hand, a business that 1) treats people for “chronic” (i.e. persisting or recurring) diseases or provides a place to recuperate under medical supervision (e.g. a hospital), or 2) allows “convalescents” (e.g. those recovering from illness or surgery) to remain while improving or maintaining their health (e.g. a convalescent center) cannot be located there since it is a “Sanitarium,” given the City's purported definition of the term. To accept the City's interpretation of sanitarium would be to arrive at an absurd result, construe an undefined term in a way inconsistent with a defined term, and nullify a like meaning expressly given other words in the ordinance.

The same conduct encompassed yet prohibited by the City's definition of “Sanitarium” is the same conduct encompassed and permitted by the expressed definitions of “Hospital” and “Convalescent Center.” Under its definition a governmental employee tasked with deciding whether to issue a certificate of occupancy could effectively tell one applicant “well . . . you are administering chemotherapy to people who have lung cancer and letting them recuperate from a treatment . . . so you are running a convalescent center or hospital” while telling the next applicant “well . . . you are giving chemotherapy to people with lung cancer, a chronic and often recurring disease, and letting them recuperate . . . so you are operating a sanitarium.” Such whimsy we cannot facilitate by adopting what the City offers as the meaning of “Sanitarium.” The definition sought to be imposed is inconsistent with the expressed definition and effect of being a “Hospital” and a “Convalescent Center.” At the very least, it creates an ambiguity in the application of the ordinance. The same conduct may or may not be a permitted use, and that ambiguity must be resolved in a manner favoring the Reinkes.

In sum, a business conducting operations within the zoning ordinance's expressed definition of “Hospital” and “Convalescent Center” is either a “Hospital” or “Convalescent Center” for purposes of B-2 zoning. Again, if it quacks, walks, etc, it is that duck. The trial court concluded as much, and we agree with its decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.4 

 


Permalink Tags:          
     Views: 1015 
Latest Blog Post by salon -Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Parents Birth Certificate Rights (6/26/2017)
More Posts You Might Enjoy
Texas House Legislators Stick Up for Public Schools - June 25 2017
Tourist Problems Around Fossil Rim on CR 2008 (Glen Rose)
2017- Invocations at Glen Rose ISD School Board Meetings
Why is Glen Rose ISD Partnering with a Christian School Supplies Organization?

 You! Leave a Comment! You Know you Want To!
You must be a registered member to comment on the blog.
Your first post is held pending approval to make sure you're not a spammer bot

 Not registered? Or you can login!

LOGON - Name:Password:

New poster comments are moderated, meaning they won't show up until approved... or not.  Be patient-we have lives outside this blog, so it might take awhile You want to be rude? totally stupid? inappropriate? Racist? Bigoted? Flame war baiter? Your post may be deleted. Spammers or people posting pretend interest comments but really wanting to hawk their latest book or sell stuff or govt propaganda flacks won't see their posts published. Comments do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the site owner(salon).
If you have a problem with logging in or registering, please speak up right away. Love your comments. Oh, except spammers
More on commenting



Click Here for Main Page

Latest Posts

Supreme Court Upholds Same-Sex Parents Birth Certificate Rights (6/26/2017)
salon 6/27/2017

Supreme Court Reinstates Trump's Travel Ban
salon 6/26/2017

Texas House Legislators Stick Up for Public Schools - June 25 2017
salon 6/26/2017

I want Universal Health Care aka *Single Payer Insurance* vs Mean Trumpcare
salon 6/26/2017

Tourist Problems Around Fossil Rim on CR 2008 (Glen Rose)
salon 6/25/2017

Ruminations of the Easily Amused for 6/25/2017
salon 6/25/2017




Comments

salon > Update on letter grading from Texas Lege May 2017 In the compromise version of the bill, schools and districts would be graded in three categories: student achievement, student progress and closi.... (Letter Grades in 2017 for Glen Rose ISD and Brazos River Charter Schools)

salon > 4/3/2017-Update on the American Humanist Assoc vs Birdville ISD case. In March 2017 - A federal appeals court on Monday said a Texas school board may open its meetings with student-led prayers with.... (Religious News and Notes from the Distaff Side - 5/14/2016)

salon > Incidentally, nobody ran against Hankins, so sad to say there will be election this year.  (Updated for 2017Why I Will Not Vote for Ron Hankins, if he runs, to be on the Somervell County Hospital Board (prev 2015))

salon > Adding a great article from Texas Tribune "In courthouse turf war, Texas counties rally against statewide court records portal". The Texas Supreme Court, through its Office of Court Adm.... (Regarding Re:SearchTX and Somervell County (Glen Rose))













Home | Blog Home | About | News | Piazza | Calendar | Audio/Video/Open Rec | Search
Write!  |profile | quotes |
top Daily | top Weekly |top Month | top Year | Top All! | archives | subscribe RSS