AG19900723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

6 to ordinaPy, garden.variety las opposed to SUD/ will make a specific use of tbs property, but CUDJ zoning, also for the broader principles that property may not be rezoned in reliance upon any resentations off the applicant and that rezon. Facts and Proceedlngs lng must take into account all permit ted uses under the new classification. Because, in the In this case the Durham City Council rezoned instant case, the City Council considered a a l~.9-acre tract tram P,-20 Residential and C-1 proposeddevelopmentplanaswellascollateral Commercial to Co4{D} Heavy Commercial with an representations concerning adjacent ptoperty and deed restrictions controlling fur ute use al attached development plan. The appl{cation for the rezooed site, but did nat deternfine the rezoning set forth that Lowe's Investment Corpora- $~tability of the land for other C-4 uses, we lion would use the land for operation of a "home hold that the challenged rezonlng constitutes center" consisting of four buildings, an outdoor unlawf~ cataract zoMng.. lumber storage area, and a parkinglot. The develop. ment plan submitted with the appliearion showed ' Both the city and the applicant for rezon~ng ap- the proposed physical site layout and included a no- pealed. ration that cart sin adjoinlng sczeage would be deeded atthetimeofdevelopmenttotheEnoPdverAssocia- The Supreme Court's Holding tiao {a conservation group}. Also in the file ,.vas a proposed reverter clause to be placed in the deed Unlike the Chrismon decision, the supreme from the current owner to Lowe's, stating that if court's Hall decision affirmed that of the court of Lowe's ceased to use the property for a lumber yard appeals. But tho supreme court followed different and home oenter, title would vest in the Eno lLiver reasoning: "Although we disagree that the rezoning Association or~ if the association no longer existed, amounted to contract zoning in this instgncet we in the city of Durham. nevertheless affirm the opinion of the Court of Despite the planning staff*s recommendation Appeals because of the failure of the City Council to to deny the application, the planning and zoning consider whether the land was suitable for all uses commission recommended 4-2 to approve the re- permitted in the C-4[D} district." zoning. Its minutes noted that as a result of neigh- Th¢courtresrateditsviewsexptesscdin ChH$- borhood meetings, Lowe's had added a thirty-foot mom landscaped bnffer along a nearby major road that ,.gould render the proposed buildings barely visible [C]oarraet zoning depends upon a finding of a transaction in which both the landowner seek- from the road. In addition, the company agreed to lng a rezoni~g and the zoning authority rest~:ict left turns from the property onto the road, ~,nde~take reciprocal obligations.... A typical At the council's heoringon the request, Lowers czample of such reciprocal assurances occurs representatives told of these attempts to acoommo~ when the applicant assares the city council date community intere scs, as well as promises to the that the property will be used only for a speci- fied purpose and no other, and the city ¢oan- neighboza that it would not stack lumber more than cji, in consideration of such assurance, agrees ten feet high and that the neighborhood residents to rezone the property in question and not to could select the color o~ the buildings. The council alter the zoning for a spool/led period of time voted 7-6 to rezone, thereafter. Some neighbors sought and received a declara- tory judgment by superior court that the transaction While the court found that the ownerln this case had constituted invalid "contract zoning." On appeal, made all sorts of representations, it noted that the the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed, say- council had not: "{T]he record is barren of even a ing: hint that the Council made any as surances in re turn. No meeting of the minds took place here, and no In our view, Allred and Blades stand not only reciprocal assurances were made by the Coun- for the lirMted principle that tezon/~ may cji.... This is not therefore a case of illegal contract not ba based on assurances that the applicant zoning."