Hill v. Board of Adjustment of City of Castle Hills

Court of Appeals of Texas

Hill v. Board of Adjustment of City of Castle Hills

301 S.W.2d 490, 1957 Tex. App. LEXIS 1749

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedApril 10, 1957

Docket13136

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 301 S.W.2d 490 (Hill v. Board of Adjustment of City of Castle Hills) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hill v. Board of Adjustment of City of Castle Hills, 301 S.W.2d 490, 1957 Tex. App. LEXIS 1749 (Tex. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

POPE, Justice,

The Building inspector of the City of Castle Hills, Bexar County, Texas, denied a permit to James W. Hill to construct a ten unit garage in a residential area. The Board of Adjustment and the District Court sustained that decision and Hill appeals.

Article lOllg, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats., grants the right of appeal to the Board of Adjustment, which in turn may grant exceptions or variances from the zoning ordinance. Courts in reviewing the Board’s decision do not substitute their judgment, but determine whether the Board acted legally and in a proper exercise of discretion. City of San Angelo v. Boehme Bakery, 144 Tex. 281, 190 S.W.2d 67; Board of Adjustment of City of Fort Worth v. Stovall, 147 Tex. 366, 216 S.W.2d 171. Hill’s application requested a permit to build a ten unit garage. The garage would provide shelter for six of his dump trucks, three family automobiles and a boat. Hill is in the business of hauling dirt and gravel. The trucks would be dispatched from the garage in the morning and would return at night. On those facts the denial of the permit was a sound exercise of discretion.

Hill claims that he has been discriminated against because other persons in the city are violating the ordinance. The implications from the judgment are that, factually, discrimination was not proved, and that the uses complained about were either non-conforming uses which *491 antedated the zoning ordinance, or usual residence uses. Such, findings have support in the evidence. Moreover, the fact that a zoning regulation has not been enforced does not work its repeal. 58 Am.Jur., Zoning, § 192; 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 226(13).

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

POPE, Justice,

The Building inspector of the City of Castle Hills, Bexar County, Texas, denied a permit to James W. Hill to construct a ten unit garage in a residential area. The Board of Adjustment and the District Court sustained that decision and Hill appeals.

Article lOllg, Vernon’s Ann.Civ. Stats., grants the right of appeal to the Board of Adjustment, which in turn may grant exceptions or variances from the zoning ordinance. Courts in reviewing the Board’s decision do not substitute their judgment, but determine whether the Board acted legally and in a proper exercise of discretion. City of San Angelo v. Boehme Bakery, 144 Tex. 281, 190 S.W.2d 67; Board of Adjustment of City of Fort Worth v. Stovall, 147 Tex. 366, 216 S.W.2d 171. Hill’s application requested a permit to build a ten unit garage. The garage would provide shelter for six of his dump trucks, three family automobiles and a boat. Hill is in the business of hauling dirt and gravel. The trucks would be dispatched from the garage in the morning and would return at night. On those facts the denial of the permit was a sound exercise of discretion.

Hill claims that he has been discriminated against because other persons in the city are violating the ordinance. The implications from the judgment are that, factually, discrimination was not proved, and that the uses complained about were either non-conforming uses which *491 antedated the zoning ordinance, or usual residence uses. Such, findings have support in the evidence. Moreover, the fact that a zoning regulation has not been enforced does not work its repeal. 58 Am.Jur., Zoning, § 192; 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 226(13).

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

301 S.W.2d 490, 1957 Tex. App. LEXIS 1749, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hill-v-board-of-adjustment-of-city-of-castle-hills-texapp-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack