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

Browse Search

30 land uses on or in close proximity to the site that are different from most of the surrounding property? Would the proposed range of newly permissible development be in harmony with the legitimate expectations of the neighbors? In Chrismon the court set out in detail four factors that are considered particularly important by the courts in determining whether there is a reasonable basis for spot zoning: At the outset, we note that a judicial determination as to the existence or nonexistence of a sufficient reasonable basis in the context of spot zoning is, and must be, the "product of a complex of factors." The possible "factors" are numerous and flexible, and they exist to provide guidelines for a judicial balancing of interests. Among the factors relevant to this judicial balancing are the size of the tract in question; the compatibility of the disputed zoning action with an existing comprehensive zoning plan; the benefits and detriments resulting from the zoning action for the owner of the newly zoned property, his neighbors, and the surrounding community; and the relationship between the uses envisioned under the new zoning and the uses currently present in adjacent tracts. Once again, the criteria are flexible, and the specific analysis used depends on the facts and circumstances of a particular case..[ 14] A review of North Carolina litigation illustrates the application of these factors to spot zoning challenges of rezonings. Size of Tract The first factor to be considered in determining whether spot zoning is reasonable is the size of the tract. The general rule is that the smaller the tract, the more likely the rezoning will be held invalid. However, it is very important to consider the size of the tract in context: a 1-acre parcel may be considered large in an urban area developed in the 1920s, but very small in the midst of an undeveloped rural area. The rezoning of an individual lot from asingle-family and multifamily residential district to a business district was upheld in Nelson v. City of Burlington.[15] In this instance the majority of property directly across the street was already zoned for business use, and the court concluded that given the prevalence of business zoning in the immediate vicinity of this lot, there was "some plausible basis" for the rezoning.[16] However, a rezoning of 17.6 acres from residential agricultural to industrial was held to be spot zoning in Budd v. Davie County.[17] was ruled impermissible spot zoning (the site was some four to five miles from the. nearest industrial zone, with all of the intervening property being in residential districts). A 17.45-acre rezoning was ruled to be impermissible spot zoning in Godfrey v. Union County Board of Commissioners.[18) This case involved a rural tract that was zoned for single-family residential use, as was all of the surrounding property, and the rezoning was to an industrial district. Similarly in Alderman v. Chatham County,[19] the rezoning of a 14.2-acre tract from a residential district to a mobile home park, when the surrounding 500 acres were residentially zoned, was ruled to be spot zoning. The fact that other small areas nearby have similar zoning to that proposed in a rezoning will not avoid a spot zoning label. The tract to be rezoned is considered in relation "to the vast majority of the land immediately around it."[20]