Agenda - 01-05-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

057 Mr. Marvin Collins Page Two December 15, 1986 relationship and its effect recently in the letter, a copy of which is enclosed. The second notion, that of leaving all existing lots that are less than 2 acres in their present R1 zone, is likewise ill-advised. Even a quick look at the map presented at the public hearing illustrating the parcels of land effected reveals that such an action would violate the prohibition against "spot zoning." The best statement of this principle by the North Carolina Supreme Court can be found in the case of Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531 (1972) . THe court said this: - A zoning ordinanace, or amendment, which singles out and reclassifies a relatively' small tract owned by a single person and surrounded by a much larger area uniformly zoned, so as to impose upon the small tract greater restrictions than those imposed upon the larger area, or so as to relieve the small tract from restrictions to which the rest of the area is subjected, is called "spot. zoning." It is beyond the authority of the municipality, in the absence of a clear showing of a reasonable basis for such distinction. Id. There has been no showing whatsoever of a reasonable or other basis for distinguishing between the property that would be zoned R1 and the Eroperty that would be zoned RB. The only basis stated for the distinction sought is one of fairness to the owners of the property in question. This is not a valid basis for a zoning distinction. It may, however, be the basis for the granting of a variance by the Board of Adjustment, on a case by case basis. Enclosed is a short article on the subject of "spot zoning" by Philip P. Green, Jr. Mr. Green is on the faculty of the Institute of Government and is generally regarded as the zoning-planning law "guru" in North Carolina. Furthermore, the "combination" requirement contained in Section 11. 7. 2 of the Zoning Ordinance can