Quantcast

SOUTHEAST TEXAS RECORD

Friday, May 3, 2024

Appellate ruling finds for city of Belton in property rights case

Texascasephoto

The 14th Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the City of Belton in a property rights case | Image by succo from Pixabay

A Texas Appeals court has ruled in favor of the city of Belton in a case brought by a car wash regarding property rights.

In a Dec. 10, 2019, opinion affirming the trial court’s decision, Justice Jerry Zimmerer of the 14th Court of Appeals wrote that Starbright Car Wash had, “failed to establish a constitutionally-protected property right or an unconstitutional taking as a matter of law.”

In May 2005, Belton had approved an ordinance to allow a change to a retail zoning district for a planned car wash and lube center, and in doing so agreed to extend a road. Then, in 2010, a revised plat, which did not include the road extension, was approved by the city. The next month, December 2010, Starbright Car Wash bought the site.

In May 2012, the plat was recorded without the road extension and another access point for the car wash. Starbright filed an inverse condemnation suit, claiming that the city’s revised plat constituted a taking of its protected right in access to its property.

A Bell County court approved the city’s motion for summary judgment, which Starbright appealed.

Starbright claimed that the city’s ordinance from 2005 “created a constitutionally-protected property interest in access from the extended Sparta Road.”

However, citing a 1981 Texas case, the court wrote, “The City retains its legislative authority to re-zone at any time as public necessity demands.”

Additionally, “Starbright did not purchase the property until after the City decided not to extend Sparta Road,” the court wrote, adding that, “Starbright has not established that, for purposes of this analysis, we should treat its reliance on the City’s original plan to extend Sparta Road differently from any property owner’s reliance on more conventional zoning classifications.”

Due to these factors, the court wrote, “The filing of the revised plat in this case did not constitute a taking,” and the trial court’s judgment was upheld.

ORGANIZATIONS IN THIS STORY

More News