|
Cn - I,C KeRtl1T_c - RnRr:rAt ~ticn s~axft~4t •xrla n.,,+hty
<br />. !~
<br />tatrdltions Is not a delegation of the tegEdaHva pourer to make law. •l~alprzsnx sreaa~ .
<br />t~A0tV0'fir8 e~
<br />lt>:ai~leotEs
<br />i. Fluntcipai Corporations; 30.8 {11CI3d) -- sanitary landfi# -- summary3udgmerrt under prior ordinance » efEe¢t op
<br />action under amended ordinance
<br />An tmappeakd, sunsmary judymertt in 1988 dedaring Meddanburg Caurrtq`s 19BS landfill zoning ordEnarxe urx;onohal was not
<br />dispositive Of this Case wharf Macldanburg CottRij- sought and obtained a sanitary IandflU special use permit; the i9t18 judgment
<br />estab6stsed, trt „ that plainttfl~ were deprhred of their due process rights because the Meckenburg County Board of
<br />Corra»is6toners could not bean impdrifai tribunal vrftfs regard to ti-s s:pacis! uae pst7nlt appAcaUon ty MecWanburg County and that
<br />lieckienburg County had failed to offer competent, material, and substartE3al evidence tp meet some ~ the required findings of the
<br />old ordinance; U1e 1965 spedal tsse permit was dedatacf null and void and Cleo judgmarst warn on to [***3] say t4tatthe
<br />torrunissfonen; wouM bs: required toamend the zonlr~ ordlrtarrce b~ora taking fltrllseradion r~a-•ding the tandfiN; rirat}rrdgment
<br />was not appealed; Mecldertburg County amended its apnktg ordinance; and plainlsf<s now cornend that the unappealed 3 August 1988
<br />jud~ndnt predudas the aeddertbttng county Board of Commissioners from otttalnhtg a pd•m1E undar• ttte ordlnp~e as amended. The
<br />1988 }udgm~st is birrdktg only as to the procedure under the ordtrtarsx•as it gsdsted prior to the 1989 amendrnenls, the amrndrrtersts
<br />followed the dL~tlves of the 1988 judgment, and Cite fact that 4lse 1968 judgmerR held that the County had failed to make a sufFfciertt
<br />showing to support the flrtdings of eomp[Eance with lice leiten-effective stele r8gu(atlans hes'no bearfng upon the 1994 permit
<br />applicatron. ,
<br />2. lwiunicipai Corporations §30.1(tiCl3d} -- zonlrrg -sanitary landfill - administrative caning decisfoq
<br />A ptovisiart of the amended Meddenburg IandNii coning ordhsance ~ncerrsing approval oP permkepplicatlons by the Charlotte-
<br />idecidenburg zoning Administrator is fadally constllutMnal becatwe the conditions whidt must be met prior t>Q issuance of a petrtrft are
<br />objedlve atar+darcfs tHfstoh can {**~*3] reasonably be applied by dre 2onErtg AdrrttrrFstretor wtltr.tlre as~tance of the Dlrrceor of
<br />Errgineetirtig ff necessary. iNhettter the derision bo permit a sartltary larulflll should be characterized as quasi-nxiidal or an ' ,
<br />administrative zoning decision was critical, slice the derision was made by fire zonktg Adrttinistralor abne, without following the
<br />manda6e for a fiAt evidentSary hearing, it carx-ot stand es a quest-judfdal deris~ort but eompMartae with alt fair Maf standards is not
<br />requited for administrative zoning dettsions.
<br />8. iNunictpat Corporations §30.1([ZCI3dj -zoning -- sanitary landfill application by c+orrrrty -- no bppermist:ibis wrsAlct,
<br />of interest .
<br />Ttsere was nb tmper-ni~ble ODMtct of It-terast where Pler3dertburg County appfled fur a tand(ltl perrntt tD the Qharfotie-MerJdenbucg
<br />Zoning Administrator, The applicant is Meeidenburg County almre while the zarting adirttnistratar is the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Toning
<br />AdministraWr and >s invWved with administration of zoning for Maddertbrxg County and ~c munidpafities within the county. While due
<br />pt'oress r+equtres an hnpaiGat decEslorxrralcer and an elected aRiciaf with a direct and substarrtiai finanda[ interest in a xarttrtg
<br />dedston (*¢*4] may not parttcipabe fn making legislative zoning dedsians, these considerations are less 16ce1y do oomC ante play
<br />when administtatlve zoning dedsions are made since theme imrolve the determination of ol>jedtve facts wlthput art elemerft of
<br />dtsattton. Further, the zoning enabling stattrbas protride firr a de nova hearing before rite board of adjustment. Absent a showing of
<br />undue influence, the fact that an applicagnn is made by an employing un3 of govemmertt dtres not to and ~ itself constiprte
<br />Impermiasible bias tar administrative zoning deristats.
<br />;; ^rr ~t • Waggovrar Hamrick Haste 1tJwtIB/Fh Kreit ~ MtDanne!!, by JohJr N. Jlasty 8nd G. J3ryars Adorns, 717, for aJJ platntlJ~
<br />appeJiarrts other than UrrJon•eaun(y; and Sanford t, Stesfman, ?r., Jbr pfaJrrtffKappeJlant tlnton Courtly.'
<br />Ruff; So»d, Cobb, Wads & MciVaJr, byl'a»ASS D. Cobb, lion' aN daRsndarJt~apWeliees other than Robed Brandon; and Srnlth Helms Mu!liss
<br />t# Nroorss, 6Y H. t~ndis VYadq 3r., tordefendant aPF~e Robert Braraion_ .
<br />n as e• A9eyer. 3ttstlce.
<br />OPINION 8Yr MEYER
<br />of>z~irol~
<br />{#498] [**ti47i Foifowing the entry on 3 August 1968 of a ,$rdpment by Snapp, 3., let the Superior Court, Medefertburg County,
<br />that dedatttd Meddenbtrrg Oonnty's 1985 fartdflil zonktg ordinance [+**S] un>xnsfiwtitxtat, Meckenburg County, on 1 May 1989, ,
<br />amended its zonktg ordksanoe, whkh in etFea adoptRd a r1BYV, 1969 lar>dfld zoning ordktanoe. Mecklenburg Cotmty suttsequ~9y
<br />petitioned deferxiarli Robert L Brandon !ar a sanitary fandRli permit under the 3989 IatldfRi ordtrtanca. befertdartt Brandon is, and was
<br />at the time the peddon was tiled, the Charlotte-Meckienlwrg Z.arring Administtator-
<br />Platntiffsbrought this adios fbr dettaratory ~rdgtnertt pursrnutt to b .6. G6 -4 +'~ b0 -267 and Rule 5?' of the #lortf t Caroline Rules
<br />of Clot) Praaed~rre to determine the vaYdity and rorts~rrtiotsality C*~+99], of the 1989 orctnanoe. Answers wars ibed by the parties,
<br />and jofrn morons for surrsmary judgmast and judgment upon the pleadings were filed by a8 parties. These motions were fseard betvre
<br />Fulton, 7., Resident Supeettor Court 3udge 1br MscSctenburg County, on 26 Marls i99t1, Sub~querrtiy, on ZO december 5990, fudge
<br />FuttOn Issued a memorandum oP~rdprnent and tftereatter, an 1Y 3arnary 1991, Bntxrred jlydgmESlt gtantittg Summary judgment in
<br />Pavoraf plakttltfs and dedarirtg fire 1989 Mecidet~urg Courtly inning ardinante unconsGtutkxtal. Defersdants appear to the Court of
<br />Appeak, and that ['~*+6] court, orr 7 July 1992, rendered tts decision reversing the superior bow~t.
<br />http://www.lexis.cam/researc~Jrehitrv~? m~8SaUc53SU04351da7'elceb95efa069a5&docni3..,.. 3/6P200$
<br />
|