Agenda - 01-05-1987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

• 065 • ties were zoned for Light Industrial or dicates that"spot zoning"can be either zoning=all of which suggests that this Heavy Industrial uses.The owner peti- by adoption of a comprehensive zon- particular criterion may not be decisive. tioned to have his property rezoned to ing ordinance or by a subsequent "Surrounded by a much larger H-I Heavy Industrial.His petition was amendment. Most of the cases area uniformly zoned." Since the supported by the county planning dines- elsewhere have focused on amendments Court began by speaking of a"relative- tor,who pointed to the major highway, (as have all of the North Carolina ly small tract," it is apparent that "a the railroad, and the availability of a cases).But the Court appears to be on much larger area" must be measured public water system as factors that made solid ground when it indicates that there in accordance with the size of that tract. the tract peculiarly suited for such may be instances of "spot zoning" However,we have no guidelines as to development,noted that the area was within the framework of a comprehen- how much larger thesurrounding zone already subject to a high level of noise, sive ontinancethe discriminatory im-' must be. and suggested that the size of the prop- pact is the same,whether it is created "Uniformly zoned" y poses a more erty was sufficient to provide for off- by one action or two.' difficult criterion.It is not common to street parking and buffering to protect "A relatively small tract."The size find a very large uniform zone (par- neighboring properties.Despite these of the parcels involved in the North titularly in an urban setting).It will be factors, the superior court found that Carolina spot zoning cases appears to noted that in Lathan across the mad there was nothing to distinguish the be Iarger than that in many cases from the subject property was a one- tract from surrounding properties and elsewhere.In Blades the size was five to two-acre tract zoned for General invalidated the amendment as "spot acres in a city, in Struts four acres in Business,while theother nearby prop- zoning." The Court of Appeals a semirural setting, in Lathan 11.412 erty was R-20 Residential.This would affirmed: acres and in Godfrey 17.45 acres,both suggest that in determining whether the • [T]he evidence before the trial court in a rural setting. surrounding area is uniformly zoned, clearly showed that the whole intent The popular image of"spot zoning" one should overlook any pre-existing and purpose of[defendant's]applica- is the rezoning of much smaller tracts spot zones. don for rezoning was m accommodate than these. By "relatively;' does the In Godfrey,most of the surrounding his plans m relocate his grain bin Court mean that the rezoned tract area was subject to one of two different operation,not to promote the most ap- should be compared with (a)the size types(and densities)of residential zon- operation,not afthelaird dhroughorttap- of the zone that surrounds it,or(b)the ing: R-20 (with a 20,000-square-foot comnate Wells the evidence size of like zones elsewhere in the minimum lot area) and R-X)(with a 0 ty"' jurisdiction,or(c)the size of all zones 10,000-square-foot minimum lot area). clearly does show that the[defendants] of whatever nature in the jurisdiction? It can hardly Property has certain characteristics y be argued that this does. that make it suitable for industrial use, Under most such comparisons, 17.45 not affect uniformity,because in Blades e.e., paved public highway and a acres would not be termed"relatively the "spot" eras rezoned from R-4 railroad on the tract and public water small: Residential to R-6 Residential— available,viewed in the context of the "Owned by a single person."This essentially both residential, but R-6 element of the definition no doubt allowed a greater density(as R-10 does general characteristics of the area in reflects the Court's aversion to when compared with R-20). Further- which it is located, the [defendant's] "sweetheart deals" of the type it more, in Godfrey, about a half-mile tract is essentially similar to the prop- characterized as improper "contract away there were Light Industrial and city or land that surrounds it and the zoning"inAllred It City((Raleigh,277 Heavy Industrial zones. (Possibly the characteristics cite[defendant's]tract N.C.530(1971),and also in Blades and Court overlooked them because they provide no reasonable basis for ion- were ing it differently from the surrounding �In most of the North Carolina deci- "So pre-existing "spot zones.") as to impose upon the small Prole> sions,the tract was owned by a single tract greater restrictions than those Analysis of the Blades rule person,but the Zopfi tract was owned imposed upon the larger area,or so by two women jointly,and the Blades as to relieve the small tract from It appears that North Carolina cases property was owned by a corporation. restrictions to which the rest of the will continue to measure claims of While the"smell"of favoritism is clear- area is subjected." This is clearly "spot zoning"against the definition in ly stronger where there is a single sound. If unjustified differences in Blades v. City of Raleigh.This suggests owner, it would appear that a "spot" treatment of similar properties are the that we analyze this definition clause might easily be in multiple ownership root of the difficulty,it should make no by clause. without having its essential nature difference whether the spot is favored "A zoning ordinance, or amend- changed. On the other hand, many a or discriminated against. ment."In both Blades and its forerun- shopping center is held in single owner- "bailed 'zoning."'This gym- _ ners(Walker and Zopfi)the Court in- ship without arousing cries of"spot ment is too broad.if one believes that 52 / Popular Government