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

Browse Search

31 Compatibility with Plan The second factor in a spot zoning analysis is compatibility with the existing comprehensive zoning plan. This involves an inquiry into whether the rezoning fts into a larger context involving rational planning for the community. Whether set forth in a formal comprehensive land-use plan or reflected in an overall zoning scheme, zoning regulations must be based on an analysis of the suitability of the land for development (e.g., topography, soil types, wetland locations, and flood areas), the availability of needed services (e.g., water, sewers, roads, and rail lines), and existing and needed land uses. To the extent that asmall-area rezoning fits into a logical preexisting plan that is clearly based on this type of analysis, it is much more likely to be upheld. An example of a zoning scheme involving relatively small parcels that was judged acceptable because it fit the context of the land and the surrounding uses is found in the Zopfi case. The court upheld the rezoning of a 60-acre triangle formed by two major highways, into three zoning districts with decreasing density moving away from the point of the highway intersection. A 27.5-acre parcel at the point of the intersection was zoned commercial, the next 12 acres were zoned for multifamily residential use, and the remainder were zoned for single-family residential use. Similarly in the Nelson case the rezoning of a lot from single-family and multifamily residential use to business use was upheld on the basis that the majority of the property directly across the street was already zoned for business use. . A contrast is provided by situations in which there is no discernible reason to single out a small tract for differential zoning treatment. Several North Carolina cases illustrate this point. In Stuffs v. Swaim[21 ]the town of Randleman had in 1967 zoned virtually all of its entire half- mile extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction (some 500 acres) for one- and two-family residences. An attempt in 1968 to rezone a 4-acre tract to a mobile-home zoning district, when there were no special characteristics present on that site, was ruled invalid spot zoning. A similar situation was presented in Lathan v. Union County Board of Commissioners.[22] In this 1980 case an 11.4-acre rezoning from residential to industrial use was ruled to be invalid spot zoning. A sawmill on the site was being operated as a nonconforming use, and the rezoning was necessary to accommodate the facility's expansion. The site had no access to major highways, rail lines, or public utilities, and the planning director concluded that industrial development would be incompatible with the surrounding residential community. Nevertheless the planning board recommended that the tract be rezoned as requested.[23] The Union County commissioners agreed with the planning board's recommendation and adapted the rezoning. The adjacent landowner then sued and won in court. The court of appeals ruled that no special features on the tract made it any more suitable for industrial use than the surrounding property was. The rezoning was invalid spot zoning because there was no clear showing of a reasonable basis for the rezoning. In Godfrey v. Union County Board of Commissioners,[24] another Union County rezoning was successfully challenged on similar grounds. The comprehensive plan designated the area as a low-density residential district, and the nearest industrial uses were approximately a half mile away. The owner sought rezoning to heavy industrial use because he wanted to relocate a grain-