Agenda - 02-15-2011 - 6a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

20 NOTE: E-mail from Judith Wegner and all files attached to the e-mail From: Wegner, Judith Welch [mailto:judith_wegner@unc.edu] Sent: Saturday, December 04, 2010 3:09 PM To: Wright Larry; Brian Crawford L.; Perdita Holtz; Alan Campbell; arohrbacher@earthlink.net; Earl McKee; Mark Marcoplos; May Becker; Pete Hallenbeck; Samantha Cabe; Tommy McNeill; Craig Benedict; Michael Harvey Cc: Wegner, Judith Welch Subject: RE: Conditional Districts discussion at QPH: More From Wegner Importance: High Hi, folks. I'm hoping not to kill your inboxes by sending you too much information, but did want to offer some thoughts in response to Larry's mails. 1. First, as to *conditional use districts and spot zoning.* As Larry knows, I've tried to explain this previously because I've written on this subject and understand why it can be confusing. I'm going to give it another go here: a. Traditional districts. Traditionally, areas within a city or county are "mapped" in accordance with a standard set of district definitions, characteristics, and eligible uses. Thus, in simple terms (forgive me if this is overly simple... just trying to lay it out straightforwardly), an area might be "mapped" as R-1 residential (meaning that residential uses with certain lot sizes, setbacks, heights, etc.) are permitted as of right; or C-1 commercial (meaning that certain commercial uses are permitted with related lot sizes, characteristics, setbacks, etc.) as of right. In addition, most districts have associated "conditional uses" meaning that such uses are permissible after an elected board or board of adjustment hearing with particular factual findings that say that the proposed uses are not problematic in the particular context (for example, day care centers might be allowed as a conditionally permitted use in a residential or commercial area if transportation considerations are met; gas stations might be permitted as a conditional use in certain commercial contexts but not if there were traffic problems associated with them). b. Rezoning (changing district designation as to given property). When proposals are made to rezoning a given locale from one district designation to another, that process is seen as a "legislative process" so that there is a good deal of discretion in the hands of the elected board that has to make the decision whether to grant the rezoning request (or not). In addition, rezoning proposals may require "super majority" votes of the elected board if there are petitions filed by those owning adjacent property in some circumstances. c. "Spot zoning:' The term "spot zoning" has used by courts when they are suspicious about an elected board's decision to rezoning (because in effect, the area being rezoning is a "spot" that is out of character with surrounding district designations). The courts therefore *apply more intensive inquiry in such contexts,* but *that does not mean that rezoning a "spot" to a different designation is per se illegal (only that the decision must be looked at more closely). The particular concern sometimes focuses on a snazzy proposal presented from a given developer for a particular type of development in a given district (for example, a proposal to rezone in order to allow commercial use in a previously residential local in order to build a modest office building). The developer shows great plans and makes great promises. The problem is, once a rezoning is approved from one district to the next, *all* the uses allowed as of right for the new district designation would be available. The developer could sell off to someone else, and something entirely different could then be built based on the approval that had assumed the initial facts from the first proponent would continue to apply. There are related concepts