AG19900723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

general, using standard contra~t-law analysis, co~r ts Ald~man~,.ChathamCounty,3°andHa)2v. Cityof have voided such- contracts on the basis that [a~ a Durham {see belowi?~ government "cannot contract awayits poIdcepower," In view of these precedents, it was not surpris- which means that {b} there is no "legal considera- ing that the court of appeals £ound that the tiaa' to balance the commitment of the owner and man case involved '~contract zoning," because the that icl there is, consequently, no contract between board had not considered the suitability oI the prop- the two. . any for all uses allowed in the new district. But the The North Ca~olina Supreme Court created a supreme court refused to go along any tut,her with ratherdifferentconceptof"contractzoning"inthe suc~ Alice-in-Wo0derland reasoning, Instead, it case of A//red vi City of Raleigh.~s An applicant for returned to the traditional view of other states that rezoniog to permit development of an apartment "contract zoning" referred to an actual contract complex on his single-family property, having been between the city and the applicant: turned down once, showed site plans and architec- tural renderings when making a second airart. The inour view, the principal dilferencesbetween city governing board apparently relied upon this valid conditional usd zoning and illegal con- representation and rezoned the property, although tract zoning are related and are essentially two in nmnber. First, valid conditional use zoning the record shows no formal commitment that the features merely a unilateral promise [rom the owner would actually build the complex as shown, landownar to the local zoning authority as to Neighbors brought an action for a declaratory iudg- the hndowner's intended use of the land in men, invalidating the rezoning. They lost in supc- question, whi~e illegal contract zoning an,ici- r/or court and before the court of appeals. Rut the pates a bilateral contract in which the land- ' owner and the zoning amhority make recipra- supreme court quoted three earlier cases that had cai promises. Second, iD. the context of said, "t/In'enacting a zoning ordinance, a municipal- conditional use zoning the local zoning au- ity is engaged in legislating and not in contracting/' diority maintains its independent decision- and went on to say: making authority, while In the contract zon- ing scenario, it abandons that authority by In our view, and we so hold, the zoning oi binding itself contractually with the land- property may he changed.., only i[ and when owoer seeking a zoning amendment. its location and the surtounding circumstances arc such that the property should be made Thus the court put itself back into the main- availablelurallusespet~mittedinthe[reeelv~ngI stream with raged to the definition at "contract distlict, l~.ezoning on consideration of assur- zoning" and encountered no difficulty in finding ances that a particular tract or parcel will he that no such zoning had taken place in this case. (But developed in accordance with restricted ap. it left to later litigation in the Hall case, described proved plans is not a permissible ground for placing the property in a zone where below, thequestionofwhetherthisprecedentwotlld restrictions oI the nature prescribed are not he followed in non.SOD/CUD cases.] otherwise required or contemplated. Rezon- lustices Webb and Mitchell dissented from the lng must bc effected by the exercise o[ legisla- court's opinion on the basis of the earlier contract- ,lye power rather than by special arrange, zoningmleln,~llredandBlados andtheirbelie[that men,s with the owner of a particular tract or parcel of land. Guilford County had no authority to adopt SI3D] CUD zoning until the 1985 antendment to the Justice Lake used this quotation in his opinion zoning enabling act, which made clear that all units in the ~)t~des case, call/nc the city's actions in that had such authority. case '~contract zoning" in addition to ~'spot zoning." Among the subsequent decisions using the same The/-/tt/l Case label have been Graham v. City of Rol~igh~~ Godfrey v. Union County Board of Commgssioners,ir Willis It was left to the IInll decision to round out the ~. Union County,~s Ne)son v. City o] Bur]ington,~ concept of "contract zoning" as the doctrine applies