{ "id": 1404537, "name": "Linda STROMWALL, Ken Sauer, Don McIntosh, and Wilma McIntosh v. CITY of SPRINGDALE PLANNING COMMISSION", "name_abbreviation": "Stromwall v. City of Springdale Planning Commission", "decision_date": "2002-10-10", "docket_number": "01-1324", "first_page": "281", "last_page": "286", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "350 Ark. 281" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "86 S.W.3d 844" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "341 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1257761 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/341/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "348 Ark. 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 74111 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/348/0313-01" ] }, { "cite": "473 U.S. 172", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6197836 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "193" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/473/0172-01" ] }, { "cite": "335 Ark. 245", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 862785 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1998, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "253" }, { "page": "901" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/335/0245-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 Ark. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1365190 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/340/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "341 Ark. 735", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1257715 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2000, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "per curiam" }, { "parenthetical": "per curiam" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/341/0735-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-56-425", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "R.epl. 1998" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 528, "char_count": 8950, "ocr_confidence": 0.732, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.262683731656367e-08, "percentile": 0.478467277435866 }, "sha256": "9b9886acfaef3aaba0140bde6e8bd9315ca239c49cfb78085fc0bd1f08c77266", "simhash": "1:c8c294f779a0f280", "word_count": 1455 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:54.106154+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Linda STROMWALL, Ken Sauer, Don McIntosh, and Wilma McIntosh v. CITY of SPRINGDALE PLANNING COMMISSION" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice.\nAppellants Linda Stromwall, Ken Sauer, Don McIntosh, and Wilma McIntosh appeal the order of the Washington County Circuit Court dismissing their appeal of the April 3, 2001, action by Appellee City of Springdale Planning Commission. The trial court found that Appellants lacked standing to appeal the Commission\u2019s action. This case was certified to us from the Arkansas Court of Appeals pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. l-2(d). For the reasons set out below, we dismiss the appeal because the Commission\u2019s action was not final.\nThe record reflects that on April 3, 2001, Appellee City of Springdale Planning Commission approved a large scale development and preliminary plat on a proposed mobile-home park called \u201cThe Commons.\u201d The meeting was open to the public. During the meeting, the Commission heard comments and made motions regarding particular details of the development. The record does not contain any formal order reflecting what action the Commission took during that meeting; however, the record contains a certified copy of the minutes of the meeting. Those minutes reflect that the Commission discussed various aspects of the development, including the width of the streets; whether the streets would be private or public; the width and location of a sidewalk; the number of single and double-wide units; and the distance between the mobile homes. Following the discussion on each particular item, motions were made to adopt the developer\u2019s proposal, and the motions were seconded. Each of the motions were then put to a vote of the members, and each motion was approved. At the conclusion of the meeting, member Bob Collins moved to approve the large scale development subject to staff recommendation. Collins\u2019s motion was seconded and approved by a majority of the members, with one member abstaining.\nAppellants brought their appeal pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-56-425 (R.epl. 1998), which provides:\nIn addition to any remedy provided by law, appeals from final action taken by the administrative and quasi-judicial agencies concerned in the administration of this subchapter may be taken to the circuit court of the appropriate county where they shall be tried de novo according to the same procedure which applies to appeals in civil actions from decisions of inferior courts, including the right of trial by jury. [Emphasis added.]\nUnder this section, only final actions taken by a planning commission are appealable. Thus, as a threshold matter, we must determine whether the action taken by the Commission on April 3, 2001, is a final action subject to appeal. Although neither side has raised this issue, we must raise it on our own because it concerns the circuit court\u2019s jurisdiction to hear the case and, in turn, our jurisdiction. See, e.g., Harold Ives Trucking Co. v. Pro Transp., Inc., 341 Ark. 735, 19 S.W.3d 600 (2000) (per curiam); Barclay v. Farm Credit Servs., 340 Ark. 65, 8 S.W.3d 517 (2000).\nSection 14-56-425 does not define the term \u201cfinal action.\u201d However, this court has previously addressed that term in the context of a civil-rights claim. In Ford v. Arkansas Game & Fish Comm\u2019n, 335 Ark. 245, 979 S.W.2d 897 (1998), this court held that the appellant\u2019s claim was not ripe because the commission had not taken any final action regarding his hunting and fishing licenses. This court relied on the Supreme Court\u2019s discussion of final administrative action in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm\u2019n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). There, the Court wrote that \u201cthe finality requirement is concerned with whether the initial decision maker has arrived at a definitive position on the issue that inflicts an actual, concrete injury[.]\u201d Ford, 335 Ark. at 253, 979 S.W.2d at 901 (quoting Williamson, 473 U.S. at 193).\nIn other contexts, this court has held that the test of finality and appealability of an order is whether the order puts the court\u2019s directive into execution, ending the litigation or a separable branch of it. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. v. Running M Farms, Inc., 348 Ark. 313, 72 S.W.3d 502 (2002). Thus, for an order or action to be final, it must terminate the action, end the litigation, and conclude the parties\u2019 rights to the subject matter in controversy. Id; Beverly Enters.-Ark., Inc. v. Hillier, 341 Ark. 1, 14 S.W.3d 487 (2000). Where further proceedings are contemplated, which do not involve merely collateral matters, the order or action is not final. Harold Ives Trucking Co., 341 Ark. 735, 19 S.W.3d 600. Based on these principles of finality, we conclude that the action taken by the Commission was not a final action subject to appeal under section 14-56-425.\nDuring the April 3, 2001, meeting, several comments were made by Planning Director Patsy Christie indicating that the Commission\u2019s actions had yet to become final or adopted as to the proposed development. The minutes of the meeting reflect the following discussions:\nPatsy Christie: Ok, so your proposing that you would make part of this development plan that that agreement with the police department would be in place for assistance in regulating parking on streets. That is gona [sic] be part of your agreement? . . .\nLynn Williamson: This is written into the draft of our agreement of our agreements.\nPatsy Christie: Ok, and that would be submitted to go in as the Final Development Plan?\nLynn Williamson: That\u2019s right.\nPatsy Christie: It would remain a private street. That\u2019s what they\u2019re proposing and that would be a means of addressing the parking problems and those kind of things.\nBob Collins: I think I would feel better if we had a Bill of Assurance or a bond that their gona [s/c] perform their duty.\nPatsy Christie: Well, when we adopt the Final Development Plan with the plat it sets the conditions of what has to take place in this Planned Unit Development. . . .\nPatsy Christie: Ok, the next item is the model home temporary marketing office. It\u2019s a little bit early to be dealing with that yet because they haven\u2019t even started the infrastructure, they\u2019ll come back with a Conditional Use request for a model home temporary marketing office when we get to that point and so that one just stays on the table.\nPatsy Christie: . . . Now the drainage issues still haven\u2019t been addressed. You haven\u2019t submitted a final drainage report?\nLynn Williamson: We have made the, we have made the corrections to allow the drainage, the final. . . .\nPatsy Christie: You\u2019ve put easements on there but you don\u2019t, the drainage hasn\u2019t been decided.\nLynn Williamson: We don\u2019t know what size they\u2019ll be.\nPatsy Christie: And they would not get final plat approval until the drainage has been installed, designed and approved.\nPatsy Christie: . . .The street names, as we discussed yesterday, we need to revisit the issue of the street names and make sure we get approval by planning and police and fire and the postal service.\nAnd then, the Final Plat has to be approved before you get any permits to set any manufactured homes out there.\nLynn Williamson: That\u2019s right.\nPatsy Christie: I think that\u2019s everything on the list.\nSecretary Schneider: Think that\u2019s everything?\nPatsy Christie: Now we\u2019re gona [he] take comments before we accept the whole thing. [Emphasis added.]\nThe secretary then asked if anyone present had any comments on the issue. There were none. At that point, Commission member Collins made \u201ca motion to approve the Large Scale Development subject to staff recommendations.\u201d (Emphasis added.) That motion was seconded and approved by all but one of the Commission\u2019s members.\nThe foregoing record demonstrates, at a minimum, that the Commission did not believe that it was taking final action in regard to plat approval for the development. The minutes reflect that further action in this matter is contemplated by the Commission, and that there are still outstanding issues to be determined before the developers receive final plat approval. Accordingly, the action taken by the Commission on April 3, 2001, is not a \u201cfinal action\u201d within the meaning of section 14-56-425. Were we to conclude otherwise, we would be effectively approving the piecemeal appeal of every preliminary or conditional decision made by a planning commission. This was clearly not the intent of the legislature when it provided for appeals only from a \u201cfinal action\u201d taken by administrative and quasi-judicial agencies. Because the Commission\u2019s ruling on April 3, 2001, was not a final action within the meaning of section 14-56-425, the circuit court lacked jurisdiction of the appeal and, consequently, this court lacks jurisdiction. We therefore dismiss the appeal.", "type": "majority", "author": "Donald L. Corbin, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Evans Law Firm, P.A., by: Karen Pope Greenaway, for appellants.", "Ernest B. Cate, Deputy City Attorney, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Linda STROMWALL, Ken Sauer, Don McIntosh, and Wilma McIntosh v. CITY of SPRINGDALE PLANNING COMMISSION\n01-1324\n86 S.W.3d 844\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 10, 2002\nThe Evans Law Firm, P.A., by: Karen Pope Greenaway, for appellants.\nErnest B. Cate, Deputy City Attorney, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0281-01", "first_page_order": 305, "last_page_order": 310 }