Agenda - 01-05-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

064 : I The term "spot zoning" has freq- commercial use over the objection of Since that decision, three Court of uently been used by the courts and text adjoining owners of residential Appeals decisions have invalidated writers when referring to changes property.... amendments characterized as 'spot limited to small areas...We think the [T]he amending ordinances before zoning." All three quoted the above basic rule to determine the validity of us do not fall into the category of spot passage as a primary basis for the an amending ordinance is the same rule zoning....There is ample support in the decision. used to determine the validity of the record for the conclusion that the Struts it Swaim. 20 N.C. App. 611 original ordinance...The legislative rezoning of the...tract was not arbitrary (1976),involved the rezoning of a four- body must act in good faith.It cannot or discriminatory,may reasonably be acre tract from R 1 Residential to M- act arbitrarily or capriciously. If the deemed related to the public welfare H,Mobile Home.The tract was located conditions existing at the time of the and is not inconsistent with the pur- within a zoned extraterritorial belt half proposed change are such as would poses for which the city is authorized a mile wide around the town of Randle- have originally justified the proposed by the statute to enact zoning regula- man. This entire extraterritorial belt action, the legislative body has the tions...and(is]consistent with its corn- (some 500 acres)was zoned for single- power to act. prehensive zoning plan.... family and two-family residences,ex- Next came Zopf v. City of being- The first case in which our Court cept for two mobile home parks.Ap- ton,273 N.C.430(1968).The rezoned found that"spot zoning"had occurred thedefinition mom'both the h property was part of a triangular was Blades v City ofRaleigh,280 N.C./ court and due Caul n invalid 60-acre tract of land at the intersection 531 (1972). In that case the property had little difficulty in fiectin�invalid spot of two major highways. One point of consisted of approximately five acres, &other two zoning_ cases were?fromunion the triangle was already zoned for corn- surrounded by streets on three sides and County.In Lathan u Bound of Co s- merce,while the remainder(and prop- a nonconforming woodworking plant, 47 N.C. App. 357 (1980), erty that abutted it) was zoned for and antique store on the other. It was netr_ denied. 301 NC. 92 (1980), an single-family residences.The rezoning situated in the center of a very large R4 ll.412-acre tract in the midst of an R-20 added some 271/2 acres next to the point (essentially,single-family residential) Residential District was rezoned try an to the commercial area.It changed the district.The owner sought rezoning to L.1 light industrial District A small next 12 acres to multi-family, leaving R-6 Residential,so that he could build (one to two acres)B-3 General Business "-`) the balance of the tract as single-family. some 20 townhouse units.In response District was Iocaaed across the road - Neighbors charged that the amend- to a recommendation of the planning from the pro pert� Both the superior meets were "spot zoning." commission,the city council adopted court and the Court of Appeals con- The superior court found that the the requested amendment. Its action eluded that the amendment was invalid resulting zone pattern met statutory ob- was sustained by the superior court,but .. „ jectives and upheld the amendments. the Supreme Court reversed, on the spot o ntog' Both gany factors were The State Supreme Court again agreed: ground that the rezoning constituted press rot to whether any factryrs wwere both "spot zoning„ and "contract presentthatwouldaonsgt~rtea"reason- Spot zoning arises where a small able basis"for the rezoning and con- area,usually a single lot or a few lots, zoning' eluded that there were none—nothing surrounded other a This time the Supreme Court set property a more detailed description of about the rezoned property made it similar nature,is placed arbitrarily in " p particularly suitable for industrial a different use zone from that to which spot zoning": development. the surrounding property is made sub- In Godfrey x Union County Burnt jeer.When that small area is subjected A zoning ordinance,or amendment, of Commissioners. 61 N C App, 100 to a more burdensome restriction than which singles out and reclassifies a (1983),there appeared tube a far more that applicable to the surrounding relatively small tract owned by a single solid basis for rezoning. The tract in- property of like kind, the weight of person and surrounded by a much volved was 17.45 acres lying on a ma- authority is that the owner of the prop- larger area uniformly zoned,so as to jor highway with a railroad-running erty so subjected to discriminatory impose upon the small tract greater parallel to it.The land was zoned R-20 regulation,may successfully attack the . restrictions than those imposed upon Single Family Residential and was validity of the ordinance...The rule the larger area,orso-arto-relieve the shown on the county's comprehensive denying the validity of spot zoning or- small tract from restrictions to which plan as low-density residential. All of dinances has also been applied where the rest of the area is subjected, is the property surrounding it was zoned a small area previously in a residen- called"spot zoning:' It is beyond the R-20 or R-10 Residential Suburban. tial zone has been removed. by an authority of the municipality, in the There were 12 residences in the area amending ordinance.from such zone absence of a clear showing of a surrounding the tract.but approximate- and reclassified to permit business or reasonable basis for such distinction. ly ahalfmile away.a cluster of proper- Summer 1985 / 51