Date: 09-04-2014

Case Style: Shaz Investments Group, LLC v. City of Moore

Case Number: CV-2013-592

Judge: Lori Walkley

Court: District Court, Cleveland County, Oklahoma

Plaintiff's Attorney: Dennis Box, David Box, Harold Heiple, Paul Lefebvre, Hossein Farzaneh

Defendant's Attorney: Blaine Nice and Eric Shephard

Description: Norman, Cleveland County, Oklahoma - The Shaz Investments Group, LLC sued the City of Moore seeking a declaratory judgment alleging:

I. Plaintiff is now and at all relevant times to this Petition was, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma. Plaintiff is the true and legal owner of Apple Valley, Section 9, real property situated within the City of Moore, consisting of approximately 26.12 acres and legally described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof.
2. Defendant, the City of Moore, is now, and at all times mentioned in this Petition has been, a municipal corporation duly organized and existing within the laws of the State of Oklahoma.
3. Defendant, the Moore City Council, is a duly constituted and appointed body of
Defendant City. Defendant City Council is authorized by the Charter and
Ordinances of Defendant Moore to enact municipal legislation within the City of
Moore.
4. Defendant, in its zoning scheme, has imposed restrictions limiting the use of the property described in Exhibit A.
5. Pursuant to the above named zoning scheme, the Plaintiffs property described in Exhibit A was placed in the R-l single family dwelling district.
6. Pursuant to the R-l single family dwelling district, densities up to 7.26 dwelling units per acre are permitted.1
7. On February 4, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Apple Valley, Section 9 from Rural Estates to Urban Residential- Low Density.
8. On February 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed an application for approval of a preliminary plat for Apple Valley, Section 9 providing for a density of 2.91 dwelling units per acre, well within the allowable density pursuant to the subject property’s R-1 single family dwelling district zoning. Said plat contains substantial and material changes from previous plats filed on the subject property.
9. Plaintiffs preliminary plat conforms to all portions of the applicable City of Moore Zoning Ordinance for the R-1 Single Family Dwelling District which is a substantial and material change from previous plats filed on the subject property.
10. Plaintiffs preliminary plat conforms with subdivision regulations for the City of Moore, which is a substantial and material change from previous plats filed on the subject property.
11. Plaintiff complied with all procedural requirements for submission and consideration of its application.
12. On March 12, 2013, Plaintiff appeared before the Moore City Planning Commission for approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Plat of Apple Valley, Section 9 Addition. Planning Commission recommended denial of Home Creation’s application.
13. On May 6, 2013, Plaintiff appeared before Defendant City Council at a public hearing requesting approval of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Plat of Apple Valley, Section 9 Addition.
14. At the public hearing, Plaintiff presented the following evidence regarding the plat and comprehensive plan amendment request on the subject property:
a. the subject property is legally zoned R-1 single family dwelling district.
b. the requested density of 2.9 dwelling units per acre2 conforms to the requirements of the R-1 single family dwelling district which allows up to 7.26 dwelling units per acre.3
c. the plat conforms with gj], subdivision regulations for the R-1 single family dwelling district in Moore.
d. the plat conforms with gjJ R-l single family dwelling district regulations.
e. the subject property’s comprehensive plan designation is not an appropriate means to deny a property owner the ability to develop their property pursuant to their pre-existing zoning.
15. At the hearing before the City Council, a number of residents from the surrounding neighborhood appeared and expressed their opposition to the proposed preliminary plat and requested that it be denied.
16. Following the hearing, despite the fact that the requested comprehensive plan amendment would bring the subject property’s comprehensive plan designation into conformance with its legally vested zoning classification, that Plaintiffs plat application satisfied all of the subdivision regulations for the City of Moore and all R-1 single family dwelling district regulations for the City of Moore, Defendant City Council passed a resolution denying Plaintiffs application.
17. Defendant City Council, in adopting the resolution denying Plaintiffs preliminary plat application, acted in an arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious manner, and failed to proceed in the manner required by law, in that Defendant City Council, among other things:
a. improperly applied the Moore City Comprehensive Plan in violation of Oklahoma law;
b. improperly yielded to protest from residents of the surrounding neighborhood in violation of Oklahoma law;
c. allowed personal feelings about the Plaintiff to affect its ability to make a
decision4
d. failed to conform to and abide by the requirements and standards set forth in the City of Moore subdivision regulations;
e. failed to conform to and abide by the requirements and standards set forth in the city of Moore’s R-1 single family dwelling district regulations; and
f. made findings not supported by substantial evidence or by law.
18. Defendant, City Council, recently approved multiple plats immediately surrounding the subject property, which contain higher densities than the plat denied by Defendant in this instance. Such denial was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and denied Plaintiffs equal protection under the law. ($..ç: Exhibit
B)
19. Defendant, City Council, recently approved multiple plats that lack buffering of adjacent properties immediately surrounding the subject property. Therefore, denial of Plaintiffs plat was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and denied Plaintiffs equal protection under the law.
20. Defendant’s denial has restrained the Plaintiff from a reasonable and proper use of its property, thereby damaging Plaintiff.
21. Plaintiff has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law other than the remedies sought by the Petition. Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if Defendants are not required to vacate and set aside Defendant City Council’s resolution denying Plaintiffs comprehensive plan amendment and
preliminary plat application, and to approve Plaintiffs application.
19. Defendants have exceeded their authority, improperly applied restrictions in excess of law and have failed to support their findings with substantial evidence and the law.
20. The findings and determinations sought to be reviewed by this Petition were the result of arbitrary, unreasonable and/or capricious action on the part of Defendants resulting in an unconstitutional action by the City of Moore.
21. By reason of the City Council’s denial, such action has and will work an unnecessary hardship on and create substantial harm and loss to Plaintiff.
WI-TEREFORE, Plaintiff, Plaintiff, Inc. requests the Court:
Issue a declaratory judgment declaring the following:
i. The subject property is zoned R-1 single family dwelling district;
ii. The plat for Apple Valley Section 9 conforms to all relevant subdivision regulations and ordinance provisions for the City of Moore pursuant to the R-1 single family dwelling district and that the actions of the City Council were arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious.
iii. The City of Moore should be enjoined from enforcing the ordinance which prohibits Plaintiff from using the land in a manner consistent with its legally vested zoning rights.
2. In the alternative, issue a writ of mandamus directing Defendants to set aside and vacate the Moore City Council’s resolution denying Plaintiffs preliminary plat application, and to approve Plaintiffs preliminary plat application by a date certain, or to appear before this Court and show cause why they have not done so,
and after hearing, issue a peremptory writ of mandamus commanding Defendants to set aside and vacate Defendant City Council’s resolution, and to approve Plaintiffs preliminary plat application by a date certain;
3. Award Plaintiff the cost of these proceedings;
4. Award Plaintiff the reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in connection with these proceedings; and,
5. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Outcome:

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: