AG19900723 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7 But this was not the end of the matter. The Notes c0mt reminded the parties of the Allred precedent: I. 32.~ N.C. 6t t, 370 g.£. 24 579 ( 19881, "Since this case [unlike Chrism on] involves a rezon- ~. __ lq.c. ~ ~ s.~. ~a ~ B ~SSl. ing from two gener~ usc zones with f~ed pe~itted a. 85 N.C. App. ~11, 354 $.E. ~d 3~ uses to another general use zone with f~ed per~t- 4, B8 ~.c. App. ~, 362 S.E. 2d 7~1 II~a7l. 5. ~h~d v. City o[ ~leigh, 2~2 ~.C. 530~ 178 ted uses, the Court of Appe~s correctly reBed upon 09711. Mked v. CiW of Raleigh,., iR conclu~ng that the 6. Decker v. Coleman, 6 N.C. App. 102, 169 5.f. 2d 48~ D~h~ City Council's decision to rezone tthe) ' 7. C[.,Hdmsv. Ch~lone, 255N,C. 647, l~$.E, 2dS17 property was improper .... [As the co~t s~d in [1961~ fox ac~s~ holdingthst zo~ maynot ~ too n~o~ly ~b~d,] '~ OUr view~ and we so hold~ the zo~ng of ~estfictivc. the proper~ may be changed from R-4 to R-10 o~y 8. Blades v. Ciw of Raleigh, ~80 N.C. 531, 187 S.L ~d 35 if and~henits location and the s~mun~ng c~cum- 9. Convent v. Winston.salem, 243 N.C. stances are such that the property should be made s?~ {19S~l. available for aB uses in m R-10 ~stfiet.' # 10, ~snong v. Mcl~is, 2~ N.C. 616, 142 S.~ 2d 670 {19651~ Mlgo~ v. Town o[ Tgboto, 281 N,C. 430, 189 S.E. 2d ~ter examining the record ~ detail, seeMng 2ss {197~1. evidence that the Durham council had ~ hot con- IL ~ N.C. 316, ~0 S.E. 2d 879 [19561. sidered the full range of uses permitted in the C-4 12. 197~ N.C. Scss. hws esl. zone, the cou~t concluded that it had not. This left ~3. 1973 N.C. ~css. ~ws 485, 14. 1973 N.C. $css. Laws 1283. the come only on~ possible basis fox uphol~ng the 15. N.C. C~n. Stat. 160A.382{city)and 158A~42 city'S action, A special act had author~ed Durham as amended by 1985 N.C. Scss. ~ws 601. tO xequ~e development plans showing dermis of 16. 85 N.C. App. 211, 354 S.~. 2d 309 I1 17, ~4 N.C, 85, 118 S.~. 2d I 119601, proposed development and to requke that Site plans 18. ~?a N.c, ~0, t~o s~, id 3~ (19681. subsequently submitted be in accordance with the 19. 280 N.C. 531, 187 S.E. ~ a5 approved development plan. The court decided that 20. Id. at 549. this made no difference: gl. 3o N.c. App. 61 I, 2~ 5.E. ~d 750 ~1976}. 22. 47 N.~. App. 357~ 267 S.~ ~d ~0 ~. 61 N.C. App. 1~, 3~ S.E. 2d 273 We hold that when tezo~g p~openy from 24. 89 N.C. App. 610, 3~6 &E. 2d 885 [1988}. one gener~ me ~stdct with t~ed petered 25. 277 N.C. 53o~ 178 S.E. 2d ~2 [19711. uses to another general use ~stdct with f~ed g& 55 N.C. App. 101. 284 S.g. 2d 742 [1981 per,teed uSes, a city co~eil must dete~ne g?. 61 N.C. App. l~, 3~ S.E, ed ~73 (19831, tha~ the property is suitable lot aB uses per- iS. 77 N.C. App. 407, S35 S.L ~d 76 { 19851, ~tted in the new general ~e ~st~c/, even 19. S0 N.C. App: ~85, 3~1 S.E. id 739 [1986]. 30. 89 N.C. App. 610, 336 S.E. 2d 885 where it has ad~tioual authority to consider a 31. 88 N.C. App. 53, 362 S.g. 2d 791 I1 development plan in passing upon a ~ezo~ng request ~d to reqffire any subnOued sit~ plan to co,otto therewith. In this case, iustices Webb and ~tcheR con- c~edin the result but ~sa~eed with the reasoning~ they continued to urge that the notions b* teg~ded as iBegal "contract zo~ng,u A total of 1,050 copies of this public document was pi:intod by the Institute of Government, The Univcrsity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, at a cost of SiS ?.04; or $0.24 p er copy, These figures include only the direct costs of reproduction. They do not include preps;argon, handling, or distribution costs.