Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
072 <br /> 2 <br /> of the laws. Article 1 , Section 32 states that no person or set of persons <br /> is entitled to exclusive or separate ambience or privileges from the <br /> :ommunity but in consideration of public service. There is no public <br /> service Involved in this provision which would exempt family members from <br /> dimensional requirements of the Ordinance. Therefore, there Is a <br /> likelihood that any exemption for family members would likewise violate the <br /> constitution. The enabling legislation which allows counties to zone is <br /> contained in Chapter 153A of the North Carolina General Statutes. There <br /> are two sections - ( 1 ) Grant of Power which allows the County for the <br /> purpose of promoting health, safety, morals or the general welfare to <br /> regulate the height and the number of stories, the percentage of the lot <br /> that may be occupied, lot sizes and densities, etc. (2) Purposes - zoning <br /> regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan and <br /> designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, <br /> panic and other dangers, to promote health and the general welfare, to <br /> provide adequate light and air, to prevent the overcrowding of land, to <br /> avoid undue concentration of population, and to facilitate the adequate <br /> provision of transportation, water, sewer, schools, parks and other public <br /> requirements. None of these purposes have anything to do with ownership of <br /> the property. Therefore any classification of property in regard to <br /> ownership would be beyond the authority of the County. The Supreme Court <br /> of North Carolina has expressed concern with legislation that would have <br /> the same effect as this legislation in a number of ways. One of the <br /> limitations on zoning restrictions is that you cannot create zoning <br /> districts which are not consistent with the comprehensive plan . This <br /> restriction is known as the limitation on spot zoning. Spot zoning would <br /> -be the result of such an exemption and would very probably be invalidated <br /> yy the courts. The theory behind the limitation on spot zoning is that the <br /> _.aecislon is arbitrary and not based on the general purposes of the zoning <br /> enabling legislation. <br /> Gledhill continued that the problem is there would be no legal <br /> reasonable basis for distinguishing between the property that would be <br /> owned by the family members and the property owned by other people. For <br /> this reason, he recommended to the Board that they not create this special <br /> fam 14•y exemption. <br /> ";Commissioner Willhoit asked about similar prohibition against <br /> exempting minor subdivisions from these provisions since they are exempt <br /> from other aspects of the Ordinance. <br /> • <br /> Gledhill responded that minor subdivisions under the County Sub- <br /> division regulations are subject to all the substantive provisions of major <br /> subdivisions. The difference between minor and major subdivisions is the <br /> process. They are required.'-to meet all the same standards. <br /> In answer to a question from Council Member Julie Andresen, Gledhill <br /> stated that he did not have enough information or background on the <br /> Chesapeake County, Maryland case to comment as to whether or not it would <br /> be subject to a federal constitutional attack. The risk is that the people <br /> who will complain will not be the family members but those who wish to <br /> develop the property in higher density who would complain of unfair <br /> -eatment. <br /> Chair Marshall assured the public that even though a few lots are <br /> involved that the Board is concerned and determined to find a solution for <br />