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

Browse Search

33 a neighborhood convenience center. The county's small area plan for the site indicated a nearby, but different site, was suitable for such a center. However, testimony at the public hearing indicated the suitability of the other site was dependent upon construction of as yet un-built roads and that shifting a center to the site in question would be consistent with the policies in the county's general development plan. Benefits and Detriments The third factor in spot zoning analysis is who benefits and who is harmed by the rezoning and what the relative magnitude of each consequence is. If the rezoning is granted, will it greatly beneft the owner? Will he or she be seriously harmed if it is denied? The same questions must be asked for the neighbors and the community at large, and then the effects on all three must be balanced. In a spot zoning challenge the courts, rather than the governing board alone, review and weigh the balance of harm and benefit created by the rezoning. Although the court may be sympathetic to a situation in which there is considerable benefit to the owner and only modest harm to others, even a substantial benefit for the owner will not offset substantial harm to others. An example is found in the rezoning ruled invalid in Blades. This case involved rezoning a 5-acre tract in the midst of a large single-family zoning district to a multifamily district in order to allow twenty townhouses to be built. The court found that no reason was offered to treat this property differently and that considerable harm to the character of the existing neighborhood might result. [35] The Chrismon case illustrates the other side of this analysis. The court noted: [W]hile spot zoning which creates a great benefit for the owner of the rezoned property with only an accompanying detriment and no accompanying benefit to the community or to the public interest may well be illegal, spot zoning which provides a service needed in the community in addition to benefiting the landowner may be proper.[36] In Chrismon the rezoning of a 3-acre and a 5-acre tract from an agricultural district to a conditional-use industrial district in order to allow an agricultural chemical use was upheld. The court weighed the benefit to the owner, the harm to the immediately adjacent neighbor, the broad community support for the rezoning, and the need for these services within the surrounding agricultural community, and concluded that there were "quite substantial benefits created for the surrounding community by the rezoning."[37] The benefits to the community must, however, be real and substantial, not merely convenient. For example, in the Mahaffey case it was argued that rezoning a 0.57-acre tract to allow establishment of an auto parts store would be beneficial to a rural community in which virtually everyone depended on automobiles. The court rejected this argument, noting, "[A]uto parts are a common and easily obtainable product and, if such a retail establishment were said to be 'beneficial to a rural community,' then virtually any type of business could be similarly classified."[38] Likewise, in Budd the court ruled generalized benefits from increased business activity related to operation of a sand mine did not offset harm to neighbors that would have been generated by substantial heavy truck traffic in a rural residential area.[39]