The Oklahoma Bar Journal November 2022

resolution following remand. It does, however, highlight the competing interests of landowners seeking rezoning and the impact on their neighbors. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT Pursuant to state statute, the Board of Adjustment consists of five members, each appointed for a term of three years. 39 Board mem bers are removable for cause by the governing body upon written charges and after a public hear ing. 40 Vacancies are filled for any unexpired term. 41 The Board of Adjustment is statutorily respon sible to hear and decide 1) appeals of decisions made by an adminis trative official in the enforcement of any zoning ordinance, 2) special exceptions to zoning ordinances and 3) variances from the terms, standards and criteria pertaining to an allowed use category within a zoning district. 42 One of the most important roles, however, is to review and consider variances to the zoning code. A variance from the terms, standards and criteria

It also provided a reminder that, “In rezoning actions of this kind, the Court must look beyond the findings and conclusions of the trial court and consider the basic physical facts appearing in the record to ascertain whether the reasonableness of the ordinance is fairly debatable.” 38 It is interesting that many elements of the Lynch case remain relevant 40 years later. There were property owners struggling with changing development in the area and, originally, an inability to make it viable for use in the then-current market. There were also surrounding property own ers who meticulously worked to maintain the integrity of their homes and neighborhood and vehemently opposed increased intrusion of commercial develop ment. The trial judge attempted to fashion a remedy allowing commercial use subject to restric tions that addressed many of the concerns raised by the city and neighborhood residents. The record does not reflect ultimate

after the death of the mother due to vandalism. It stood vacant for several years, during which time the sisters continuously attempted to sell the property, which was on a corner lot adjacent to an existing strip shopping center. The owner of the strip center offered to purchase the property subject to the lot being successfully rezoned to commer cial. 29 Several blocks in this area had strip centers zoned for various levels of commercial usage. 30 The sisters made application to the city to rezone the lot and asked that the single-family dwelling classification be rezoned to local commercial. 31 Intervenors Maureen Anderson and Putnam Heights Preservation Area Inc. entered the case in support of the city and strenuously objected to the rezoning application. 32 After a full hearing before the City Council, the application was denied. 33 The sisters filed suit in Oklahoma County District Court, challenging the decision by the City Council and sought injunc tive relief to prohibit the city from interfering with their use of the lot for uses found within the requested commercial zoning classification. 34 The trial court enjoined the city from enforcing the residential zoning and ordered rezoning of the property to com mercial with a list of prohibited uses and other restrictions. 35 The Court of Appeals upheld the order of the trial court, enjoining the city from enforcing residential development, but reversed and remanded with instructions to vacate the portion of the order rezoning the property to a particu lar commercial category. 36 In its opinion, the court noted that the standards by which the trial court’s exercise discretion must be guided in zoning matters were clearly and succinctly set out in Garrett v. City of Oklahoma City. 37

Some of the most contentious cases involve applications to rezone property from residential to commercial development. There were several cases that were decided in the 1980s by the Oklahoma Supreme Court and the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals that highlighted matters that remain relevant today.

NOVEMBER 2022 | 13

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL