AG19900723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

commissioners rezoned the Froperty and issued the view, the ',all or nothing" approach of tradi- .... c0nditionalusepermitasrequested. Chrismonthen tlonal zoning techniques is insuliiclem in sued for a deelaa:atoty iudgment that both actions today's world of rapid industrial expansion and pressing urban and gm'al social and eeo- were invalid, nomlc problems .... Having so stated, we The trial com't found that the pennitted uses hasten to add that, just as tMs type of zoning were compatible with the agricultural needs of the can provide much-needed and valuable flexi- surrounding area, that the rezoning was neither bility to the planning efforts of local zoo- ''spot zoning;' nor "contract zoning," and that the ina authorities, it could also be as easily abused .... We have said.., that, in order to county commissioners had not acted arbitrarily in be legal and proper, conditional use zoning, making theLr decision; it therefore upheld the nc- like any type of zoning, must be reasonable, tions taken· On appeal, the North Carolina Court of neither arbitrary nor unduly discriminatory, Appeals ailed that the actions violated both the and in the public interest, ... It goss without "spot zoning" and "contract zoning" prohibitions saying that it also cannot constitute iUegal and consequently were invalid.~6 The ca se was the n spot zoning or illegal contract zoning.... Tbs · benefits of the flexibility of conditional use appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. zoning can be lairly achieved only when these limiting standards are consistently and fairly Holding Number i: Validity of applied. SUD/CUD Zoning Justice Meyer added a comment on one limits- Justice Lewis Meyer wrote the opinion of the tion suggested by the court of appeals. That court supreme court. A/ret outlining the facts and proce- had held, "{lin order to properly rezone the area to a dures below, he considered the general validity of conditional use district, thc zoning authority tnt- conditional use zoning: dally must determine that the property; under the new zoning classification, is suitable for all the uses · - As an initial matter, because this Corox has permitted in its corresponding district." Noting not prevlously been called upon to address the that this role was appropriate in considering a rezon- legal concept ol conditional use zoning' and ina from one genera] usa district to another such because the decision of the Corm of Appeals district but would essentially negate the entire vinusliy outlaws that practice, we pause now concept of condSt~ona$ use distr~cts, Meyer said; tn address its place in the jurisprudence of this state. Specifically, we hold today that the practice of conditional use zoning is an [Wis }told to&ar that, contrary to the conclu- approved practice in North Carolina, so long sion reached by thc Court of Appeals below, it as the action of the local zoning authority in is not necessao' that property rezonsd to a accomplishing the zoning is reasonable, ne/- conditional use district be available for all of thefarbitrarynortmdulydiscfiminatory, and the uses allowed under the corresponding in the public interest, general use district. In so holding, we join severalother jurisdictions which bays reached the same oonclusion. He then went on to support this conclusion with extensive quotations from various legal snare es indicating the desirability of more precise and spe- Holding Number 9: "Spot Zoning" ct fie controls over many uses and the need for more The court next turned to the holding by the flexible application of such controls than is possible cour~ of appeals that the rezoning hero constituted with traditional zoning. Concluding this discus- sion, he stared: an illegal form of "spot zoning." By way of background, 'there is nothing in the Like the ~mlsdictions we expressly loin tOday, zoning enabling act orany other statute that refers to we are pc!snarled that the practice, when "spot zoning," The doctrine apparently arose spon- properb, implemented, wiliaddavalnableand taneously in other states, and it came into North desirable flexibility to the planned efforts of Carolina jurlsPmdence in 1960, When the cmttt · ._ local authorities throughout our state. In our considered its application to the facts in Wal]cer v.