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

Browse Search

34 Relationship of Uses The fourth factor in spot zoning analysis is the relationship between the proposed uses and the current uses of adjacent properties. The greater the disparity, the more likely the rezoning is to be held illegal. This was a consideration in the court's invalidating the rezonings in the Lathan, Godfrey, and Budd cases, even though all three situations involved relatively large acreage (11.4 acres, 17.45 acres, and 17.6 acres respectively). In these cases the rezoning was from low density residential to industrial use. Given the magnitude of this change, the court looked closely for a supporting rationale and found none.[40] Likewise in the Allred and Blades cases, proposals to locate high- density multifamily projects in single-family residential neighborhoods were invalidated. On the other hand, in the Chrismon case there was only a modest change in the allowed uses: the landowner could carry on the storage and the sale of grain under the original zoning; the rezoning allowed the storage and the sale of agricultural chemicals. Further, the site was in the midst of an agricultural area that needed such services. Thus the court could conclude: ... [T]his is simply not a situation ... in which a radically different land use, by virtue of a zoning action, appears in the midst of a uniform and drastically distinct area. No parcel has been "wrenched" out of the Guilford County landscape and rezoned in a manner that "disturbs the tenor of the neighborhood."... In our view, the use of the newly rezoned tracts ... is simply not the sort of drastic change from possible surrounding uses which constitutes illegal spot zoning. [41 ] Another factor is that limitations on the proposed uses included within the zoning approval can be an important factor in minimizing adverse impacts on neighboring properties. For example, a conditional use district rezoning to allow a neighborhood convenience center was upheld in Purser in part because "the development of the Center was governed by a conditional use site plan that was designed to integrate the Center into the neighborhood and insure that it would be in harmony with the existing and proposed residential uses on the surrounding property."[42] A change in the conditions is not required to justify a rezoning in North Carolina, but it can be an important factor in establishing that a proposed new zoning classification is compatible with surrounding land uses. For example, in Allgood v. Town of Tarboro,[43] a rezoning of a 25-acre tract from residential to commercial use was upheld in part on the basis that in the eight years between the initial adoption of zoning and the challenged rezoning, the surrounding area had substantially changed because of the expansion of an adjoining road, the extension of water and sewer lines, the construction of a school and an apartment complex nearby, and the annexation of the site by the city. 1. For an overview of national spot zoning cases, see 1 KENNETH H. YOUNG, ANDERSON' S AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING §§ 5.12 to 5.22 (4th ed. 1996); 3 EDWARD H. ZIEGLER, JR., RATHKOPF'S THE LAW OF ZONING AND PLANNING §§ 28.01 to 28.05 (4th ed. 1998). 2. N.C. CONST. art. I, § 32.