|
parch - 72 Results - si38c:TB~'t1fiP. 11P.711'rit wIR rer-srnfer PRQP. ~ of 1 tl j
<br />!~
<br />["'5021 5ubsectlons 3124.1 through 3124.6 detine'sartitary IancNNE," set out a procedure }'or [**ti09j reclarnalfan of the .
<br />proposed sNx, set forth yardage and screening requirements, specify permisslbie hours of operation, and regulate access. AN
<br />douurrentetion supporting the applyion must be su6mitbeci re the Zoning AdmiMsb'ator, who, wkh file assistance of the
<br />Mee*lanhurg Ct><rrtty otreetor oP ss>gtneering, must assure that the appfle~Ort oompites whir the ordtnance and regulations referred tb
<br />bt 5edlon 317.4.
<br />Subsection 3124.7 provities that the Medder-bttrg County SuiicNng Standards Department must natlfy all affected (***12] property
<br />owners, advlstng them of tine proposed devaiapment and when and where the plans may be inspected. The Zonirq Administrator w .
<br />step requked to post a notwe at the site, g that rezemirtg for ttte propasnd use has been requested and stating where addiganal
<br />irttbrmatiiNr may be obtained. After ne»]ces are mailed, rho Zonasg Administrator must wait at least Afteen days acid hider aN
<br />comments on the applcatlon before deciding whdfrer eo issue s permit for. ifie proposed rase. Orin the Zoning Atministrator makes a
<br />dedston; he tree five days to n~affectad property owners and anyone who aornntertteti cxt the proposed use. Any person aygtfeved
<br />e Zoning Aciministratex'5 Is entitied to an appeal efe navo in the 8o~+d of Adjustment pursuant to [f•C~.C..s_. §1 3A-~a
<br />Undue the 1989 Meddenburg C41fl1ty zoning ordtnatice, sanitary landfBls are permNted to all inning dlsMcis in iAedclenburg County so
<br />tang as the estabtishmerrt and aperatlan of the landfiN campNes with the Salkf 9lfaste Management Rules of the State of North Carolina
<br />and the "Regulations Goverrttng the Stooge, CoUeetfeat, Transporting and i>tsposal ~ Garbage and Refuse in Mecidenburg County as
<br />adapted [***z3], by the County's Soarri of Corrimisa{orlers under authority 9rahtx:d by the General Statutes of earth Caraltna. The
<br />ordinance also requires that a reGamaYlorF and altetiuse plan detaNing the steer tree be submitted; that the use not be inconsistent
<br />wktr 3 garerai w~eraN county plan, referred tows fire 2005 plan; that a special reserve fund in an amount to be daterrrtined ]sy the
<br />Zoning AdrrrMlstrator be set aside for futta+e teas; as weN as generally for setbacks and erthe+x objective guidaGnes and conditions.
<br />Tire 1989 ordinance does not provide far a ptrbec hearing btdvOre die commissiexrers or the Zoning Board of Ac~ustment but raticer' .~ -
<br />ptovidesthatthe Z;oning Adtrr>ihistratorwiN determine whether [x`5033 the cortditfon6 were satiaryed In ord~r>p Issue sudr a zoning
<br />Permit. it also retgrires the Zoning Administrator to receive and odder pr~Nc comment on the application for permit hr rractring his
<br />decision.
<br />dr- 8 December 1989, tdeciderrbtrrg County again appNed for a zoning permit on the FNghway 521 site, Under the relevant amrrrdment
<br />to fht t4eddenburg County 7otttng ordinance, the appNeatian was directed to defendant Brandon, who is and was the Charie#e-
<br />Meeddenbirrsg Zoning Administrator and [*"*143 who adminis6ers zoning ordinances pranwEgatsd by the City of Charit>ite forthe
<br />areas wltfelrr its Eimlts; Prmnuiggaabed b1/ Mecklenburg Cotatty fos the un#r~-porated areas c>#the County; and prornutgaeed by the
<br />Tpwns trf Matthews, iitgttarsvple, Comeihrs, Mint HNI, and irinevige within the areas of their zoning Nmtis.
<br />The ptatMlffs fNed tits action for dedaretoty reitef seetdng to have the 1389 Mecfdenbura Co~Y zoning ordinance dedared
<br />unconstiar4onai as welt as raising other issues. 3udge Shirley L Fulton, Resident Superior Court ]udge for Meddenburg County,
<br />aorth Carolina, actlng an cxoss-rrtotitxts for summary judgment, issued a memorandum of judgment dedaring the new bleckier>burg
<br />County zorrirrg ordinance uneorrstitutiemai in that it improperly delegated the authority of the County Commis~onexs to consider
<br />special use pet'mits to the Zoning Administator, in violation of N_c.GS. §~ -3bo. and in that the ordinance providing far the
<br />Zoning Administrator to freer and determine zonir~ appikatlons was a derda) of due process under the ~- r~teereth Amendment erthe
<br />i„jrittrr_r Oats r_....~•1~~,
<br />Deteitdants'appealed to the Court of Appeals, which held that MatlCienburg County could delegate j***15) its authority to a•zoninp
<br />j+*61p] administrator m Issue special use permits and that such procedure wee not a denial of due proems.
<br />.We first ode fire lsstre of standing. ~ In their re6pet3We briefs, the parties address at same length the gvesiian of whether
<br />[*5043 the plaintiffs had standhKi to bring the dedaraiory judgment action Lltat Is ihs wbjea of this appeal.
<br />~~ooiaa~s .. ......_.~._..~_.._ .. ......._...._....___..._.._._, -.. ......_........ ..j
<br />a'~=+OMy those persons "who [have) a specNtc petaan~ and legal krtarest in the subje~ matter affer~ed by the zonh;g i
<br />i txdhtance and who [are) dfrectly and adversely ari2cted ttrereby have standing to challenge a legislative'zoning declslorJt. ~
<br />' y,_{j~Yaf a h. 2~! N.~. sne,~o. 227 ~.t=.2d~,~~ 91 761 see ~a y Jbr~fBisfL..~3'~.~,.. t~F 1s7 C~F',Td 3S
<br />f;12Z21; Z4~l.it-crty nr iNRlmingten, Z7~.111.5~ a~t.3f~4.5,~7d ;",5 f fo6A). t~yt„ s v..fgY_dfA;ixhda3f~. s~ ra.r_ npp,,, ,Aa ~ -
<br />g,E,2 3¢ji,,,[~cot; 1 alludes bo a requirement far "special damages" distine:ttram those of the rest of the community m c~rfr;r
<br />i standing bo•chaNenge a rezoning. 1
<br />s ~
<br />s
<br />;The use of the "spmciaf damages` test In Davis is taken frtmr the cas~s'on scantling bo Challenge quest-judidal zoning dedairns. In
<br />i these instarroes, H^~tlte appeUarrt must present evWertce that he is the owner or optkmaa of the affee~ed property. trumbie tNl &
<br />v. Bd ofA,~~'(Bg~, 49 ~Ald'.,.BiNk I81 70
<br />i ~.b,3 ~ f~fiD1. disc. rev. dented 8 appeal dASraiesed, Adjofhing iu+operiy owners must
<br />.: prt:serrt evidencet of a rafuction M their property valuere. ~Y_Y. zorilno BA~.o!'!td-r<~men~, s± tB.C Ann_ fi~,~, ~pC~F,~nb9
<br />(7,5.83}. A ndghborhood association has standing if Its individual members have shovm actual flrtandai harm in order to be
<br />"aggrtaved." ~'°••red c~easy. _ ofAdru~rn~spjefa`n.~.me..ga Ny, A~Ib-~, 3fF 1~•>:~~.1~I1..~1= f' . '~ .,
<br />[*a*163 Under d1e particular facks pYesBrttsd In this wse, we find it unnecessary to address this i~ue and assume abndfng of Yne
<br />plaintiffs to bring thk actitxt arguerrtlo in order to address the tmparfant issue of the fadai cortstitutiorraliiy trf the Mecicienbur9 County
<br />aorttng aviinanrx as ft relates to sanitary landfrtla.
<br />jia We next address the Fssue of rite tdfect erf the 1988 audgmerrt. plnlntlffs argue that the 1388 unappealed judgment of Judge
<br />Snapp entered on 3 August ig88 declaring Maddenlxlrg County's 1985 landfill zoning ardfnanae•urrcoetstitutional is disptuttive of the •
<br />praseM case. Wt disagree. ,
<br />Meckfetrburg County inRta([y sought and obtained a sanitary tandfiN special ass permit under the pre-1 May 1985 xaning ordinance,
<br />httpJlwww.lexis.cana/researcl]Ixetrieve2 m=85.40e535004351da7e1ceb95efafl69a5&doclin... 3/6120i}8
<br />
|