Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
37 <br />33. The character of the surrounding neighborhood was also a factor in Finch v. City of Durham, <br />325 N.C. 352, 384 S.E.2d 8 (1989), though the spot zoning issue was not explicitly addressed in <br />this taking challenge. The rezoning from commercial to residential use, which was upheld in a <br />taking challenge, was supported by policies of protecting an adjacent residential neighborhood <br />and limiting commercial development to the opposite side of the adjacent interstate highway. <br />34. 127 N.C. App. 63, 488 S.E.2d 277 (1997). <br />35. See also Covington v. Town of Apex, 108 N.C. App. 231, 423 S.E.2d 537 (1992), rev. <br />denied, 333 N.C. 462 (1993) (invalidating rezoning of former post office site adjacent to a <br />residential neighborhood to an industrial district to accommodate an electronic assembly <br />operation). <br />36. 322 N.C. 611, 629, 370 S.E.2d 579, 590 (1988). <br />37. Id. at 633, 370 S.E.2d at 592. <br />38. 99 N.C. App. 676, 683, 394 S.E.2d 203, 208, rev. denied, 327 N.C. 636, 399 S.E.2d 327 <br />(1991). <br />39. 116 N.C. App. 168, 175-77, 447 S.E.2d 438, _ (1994), rev. denied, 338 N.C. 524, 453 <br />S.E.2d 179 (1995}. <br />40. See also Mahaffey v. Forsyth County, 99 N.C. App. 685, 394 S.E.2d 203 (1990), rev. denied, <br />327 N.C. 636, 399 S.E.2d 327 (1991) (holding that auto parts store allowed by rezoning was <br />significantly different from existing surrounding use as rural residential neighborhood). <br />41. 322 N.C. at 632, 370 S.E.2d at 591-592. <br />42. 127 N.C. App. 63, 70-71, 488 S.E.2d 277, 282 (1997). <br />43. 281 N.C. 430, 189 S.E.2d 255 (1972). <br />