|
I f
<br /> C 63 .
<br /> t
<br /> Questions I _ __ ~
<br /> t
<br /> C y is -.:-
<br /> # it- wfr '' _'
<br /> Most Often Asked ., ...„...._
<br /> ..-_- _,,, ,-= - ,., ,,,,,,,,,,, ,-
<br /> .,
<br /> ______,-.,_:- - '-''''Y -- -'7'. -\'4"Y'''' r
<br /> What Is "Spot Zoning?" -- . r _ ,may.: - �� :
<br /> ri
<br /> . ` _ - _
<br /> Philip P. Green, Jr. . � V.
<br /> t
<br /> "Spot zoning"is perhaps the most- in Sec. 34), or the denial of
<br /> perhap g. They all agree that it is invalid (Article I,
<br /> used,and least-defined,expression in when it is attempted.But I have found equal protection of the laws(Article I,
<br /> the lexicon of zoning. Nowhere does no case in which they have pointed to Sec.19;also,US.Constitution,Four tt
<br /> it appear in the zoning enabling act& the constitutional or statutory basis of teenth Amendment).It applies only to
<br /> Rarely is it found in a zoning ordinance, their ruling.And rarely have they de- legislative actions(adoption or amend- r
<br /> No one seems to know who coined the fined "spot zoning" with precision. merit of a zoning ordinance)and not to G
<br /> 3 phrase.'But generations of zoning of- In general the courts have described administrative or quasi-judicial actions
<br /> ficials have reacted like Pavlov's dog to "spot zoning"as zoning that does not (e.g.,grant of a special-use permit or t
<br /> the sound of a dinner bell whenever the accord with a comprehensive plan,or a variance). If there is a reasonable 1
<br /> term was injected into debate over a is sharply different from the zoning of basis for treating particular property
<br /> pending amendment.Apparently they surrounding or nearby properties, or diffeendy from nearby or similar prop-
<br /> feel like Justice Potter Stewart of the appears to favor(or punish)a particular ernes,that should be enough to support l
<br /> United States Supreme Court, who property owner.They have enunciated the validity of the zoning;ergo,it isnot
<br /> confessed that he might not be able to subsets of rules: "It is not `spot zon- "spot zoning."
<br /> define "bard core pornography" but ing'when the amendment is in accord
<br /> declared, "I know it when I see it."2 with a general, previously-adopted '
<br /> Courts as well as zoning officials policy or plan.""It is not'spot zoning'
<br /> North Carolina cases
<br /> have reacted in generally predictable when it merely extends an existing
<br /> ways when they have found that a zon- district."In some cases they have held Now let us examine what the North
<br /> ing amendment constituted"spot zon- the rezoning of very large tracts to be Carolina courts have said on the
<br /> "spot zoning";in others,they have held subject.
<br /> the rezoning of small lots not to be"spot The first mention of"spot zoning"
<br /> The author is an institute Faculty member whose zoning." in a published North Carolina decision
<br /> field is planning law. At the risk of indictment for imper- was in l4blker v. Elkin, 254 N.C. 85
<br /> 1.Assiduous research in the earl literature of sonating a judicial officer,I would like (1960). It involved the rezoning of a
<br /> tuning has produced no clues it ght be need to suggest that at root"spot zoning"is 3.56-acre tract from RA-6 Residential
<br /> that the word"spot"itself is used in many ways• nothing but giving special treatment to to Neighborhood Business.The super-
<br /> with widely varying meanings:"He is on the spot.- one or a few property owners,without for court found that the topography of
<br /> "This is a lovely spot fora picnic.-"That was the adequate justification.The concept is the tract,its location with respect to ma-
<br /> high spot of his career.""That really hits the spot.' rooted in the North Carolina constitu- jor highways, and other development
<br /> He spots the enemy;•"Out.damned spot!""You tional provisions that prohibit the grant in the area rendered it unsuitable for
<br /> have spotted my escutcheon" "My dog Sputa' p p g
<br /> 2. Jacobellis v. ohm. 378 u.s. 184. rn. l3 of "exclusive privileges" (Article I, residential development. On appeal.
<br /> L.Ed.3d 793. 803-1(19641. Sec.32).the creation of"monopolies the Supreme Court agreed:
<br /> 50 l Popular Government
<br />
|