AG 1995 01 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

An~¥is P~tition 94-07 Page a~. localized view of the rezoning is important to consider. By reference to the October 20, 1994 minutes, these concerns are being incorporated into this report. The issue is not whether or not any business can occur in residential zones, for in fact they can -- as long as they meet performance standards as home occupations. A trucking facility does not meet any such standards. Specifically, this type ofrezoning deals with spot zoning. 3. Snot Zonin2: A review of case law notes from the Administrative and Financial Laws for Local Government in North Carolina as it addresses zoning enabling and rulings by the State Courts, finds the issue of spot zoning reviewed and ruled upon in many cases. Referencing the case of Chrismon v. Guilford County (85 N.C., App. 211,354 S.E.2d 309 (1987)), found in North Carolina G.S. 153A-341, the courts ruled that "the zoning ora small area differently than a much larger area surrounding it ... conflicts with the whole purpose of planned zoning. Therefore, unless there is a clear showing ora reasonable basis, spot zoning is beyond the authority of the county or municipality." (Italicized for emphasis.) In addition, the courts have also ruled that zoning must be accomplished in accord with a comprehensive plan to promote the general welfare and serve the purposes of the General Statutes which enables zoning (North Carolina G.S. 153A-240). Other cases in which the courts upheld the same ruling were Chrismon v. Guilford County, 322 N.C. 611,370 S.E.2d 579 (1988); Alderman v. Chatham County, 89 N.C. App. 610, 366 S.E.2d 885, cert. denied, 323 N.C. 171,373 S.E.2d 103 (1988), and Blades v. City of Raleigh, 1972. The difficulty in this case, is that the business is a good business, but the location of the business (which is dependent upon the road system) is poor. It represents a fol,~ of spot zoning that the North Carolina Courts have declared invalid. Conclusion It is the position of the staff that this petition should be denied based on the following findings: 1. The site's development as a trucking facility is not in harmony with the Midland Area Plan that was adopted by the Commissioners as the land use plan for the area. Further, the trucking facility would not be compatible with the surrounding land uses, nor can it be made compatible with reasonable conditions. 2. The roads and bridges are not adequate to support the vehicles directly attributed to the business when considering the width, topography, and limited sight distances of the roads as well as the one lane bridges and railroad tracks, which would be crossed on a regular basis in travel to and from the site. 3. In the absence of finding the Midland Area Plan as wrong, North Carolina case law recognizes this as an improper form of spot zoning. Kimberly A. Schriefer~/t~ Planning Technician (704) 788-8181 ext. 143 Sarah W. LaBelle Transportation Planner (704) 788-8141 ext. 835