|
~earcn - ~~ Kesutts - tluecla.t nse hermit w/e eaunty Pa.Qe i of it1':x
<br />l
<br />'~~_ .
<br />sweee aiw L ~....e. i sqn orr l ~,jr+ar
<br />p"~f"'~"4"~S~~Sta Lltl~'r~sa~e9oenclAdvkor~Counsetseb~ary~ ooowri~vi~ '~''
<br />smrroa: JbeSt~i s : , } Nc Ststa Cass, casblrted
<br />Terarx spadN oea P~ rds eotarty I~e9eestTamstatrysn~i
<br />fSalaottor FOCx18'r" or Deitwery ,
<br />334 JV.C< 446, *; 434 S.i= Zd 504, w
<br />Ip931V.r:. LEXIS 4Q3, *x*
<br />THE CAUMY OF LANCASTER, SOlli'H CAROLINA• THE COUNTY OF llNION, NORTit CAROLINA; ROSA PQ7i'S 05801WE; ROBERT
<br />tiRRR; SAi'4 ARDREY and wtie, JAMIE !l. ARL7REY; LAVAVIA A. [Clii.<y MARG[ts K. BOyLSTON; TUCKBt I.20HN5oN and wiiti, ANGELUS
<br />R, lOtit'tSON v. MECIQ.B88URG COUNTY, NORTtt CAROEfNA: THE HOARD OF ('AUNTY OOMMI5Si0NERS 4F ~N1l3CKLEA[BURG WUNTY,
<br />NORTH CAROLINA, TO iNrf: CARER pUPUY, ROD AVfREY, .BARRARR LOGtCYVOOD, ROBE'AT f.. WA!_TDN, PETER tCEBER, JOHN G.
<br />I3LAL'KMON, and IGENNtTH L AN[NtEWS; at-d ROBERT L. BRAPIpON, ~~ Adminhxrabor of Medtferrburg Courtly, North Carolina
<br />Na. Z93PA92
<br />SUPREME ODURT OF NORTH CAROLINA
<br />334 N.C. 496; 434 S.E.2d 644: 1993 N.C. lEXIS 443
<br />larruary i3, 1993, Heard in the Supreme Court
<br />. • : :September 14,1993, Flied ~ -
<br />PLt3DRHISTORY: j***1a Otr dfsa'etionary rsviavii of a detisdon of fire N 4
<br />,(19921, n:verstng the judgrnetrt entered by FutEon, J.,,in rite Superior Court, Madden urg County, on T January 1991 and remanding
<br />the case for further proceedings.
<br />. aisposzTiot~l: AFFIRMED.
<br />cnt;~E stt~traAtnr
<br />PROCL'DtiRAL PoS`Tt7REs Def~darrts, nelghbarsrg county and Its zanirrg adrt4ritfitratot', appealed a dectsion of the Court of
<br />Appeals (Noriii Carolina}, which revaned a derision granting summary judgment to favor of plaintiff wuntY and declaring a landfill
<br />zo)ting arr3nance uncortstituttonai.
<br />Q1fERVIEW: A cour4y and Indhriduais tiled an aCtian for declaratory repef, seeking to.have a neighboring counlys zanMg
<br />ordinance declared umm~stttutional. The wort of appeals reversed the judgment flriding the orditwrtce unconstitutional and, on
<br />appeal, the wort afR-:rred. The court head that the decision of whetherto permit a san#ary laridiiit was an adrrdnistratfve mrtkrg
<br />decision. The catrnty'ir'grant oP a pemrit appUcatlon the! passed tine ardlnanot wunty was an administrative zoning declstan that
<br />the mu~Y wrung administrator could property make. It was not an im(seimissfble wriflict of interest because the app&®nt f+~ the
<br />perrrdt was the county itself. The same logic that perrratbed the county ~rB to delegate authority to the zoning
<br />administrator b0 issue apeGat pee pettnlF:a also supported fire dedalon that the commissioners had autfiorily to attaMr the zoning
<br />administrator m issue pennlts for uses tsy right subject to special requirements.
<br />oU'T+L'OME: The judgment riwtrsing the dec~ion ending the county lans#Iti orcUnar}w unconstitutional was affirmed because ft
<br />was a valid legislative prerogative btr change tfie sanitary tandfUl use from a 'special ore permit' cairsgory to a °use by right
<br />under pled condRlons' . The or+cUnanca, whkh allowed the zoning admlitistrabor to approve isle permit appikatlort for
<br />stung of a landtlN, was caaratlttrtianal and lawful an Its leba.
<br />CAKE TERhSs landfill, zarrirag adrtHtiistrator, oohing ordinance, zoning. ordinance, use pamNt, sanitary, zoning derision, quasi-
<br />judlcial, site, prescrihed, tmptrtnisslbl4, torH&donel, permit app}tcafion, surnmary ]udgLnent, speclired candlUons, delegation,
<br />issuance, landfip permit, saltd waste, promulgated, zonrig dfsbids, objective facts, de rwvo. prop~Y mere. public hearing.
<br />permiEled use, pfartntrtl; agenry, evk}entiary, declaratory .
<br />LEXISNEXii~ tiFADNOTE8
<br />E;~
<br />y$> > la~Krsr Arwrd~w
<br />ynot Pr~r,a,hr raw? TJIIIhG ~tE tm.~r ~~••> ~ .
<br />+~d"OnIY use Persons Nrho have a specific personal and legal hrterest In the su1 matter affected by a xonirtg ordinance
<br />and who are dirrctly and adversely affected thereby have standkrg to challenge a legislative xontng
<br />dedsiorr. tiflrlis°nu~xe.,~ yam, .
<br />[3~N Ptnr~el~_ > > a > fiehera) aver~Aew ~nf
<br />>~IQ.> 7~70.C
<br />~~m:tY r?"~ > Trrnia? "~!arlrt.~> fib
<br />~,$An appellant challenging quasbgudlcial mntng declslons must present evtder~e that he is the owner ar optlortee of the
<br />aPfexted property. Adjotntng properly owners must prosent evidence of a r~edtiixJarl In their property values. A
<br />neighbocFrood assaiat~rt has standing if its tndivkiuat trterrtbers five shown actual finatidal harm &r order ip be
<br />ag9rtCVed. f Sfi~s,dhe: amine ew_rlexdn~e
<br />r~a~mlmraadex~ -
<br />http:l/virurw.le~LZS_co~nlresearch/retrieve? m~=8S40c53500~351•da?elceb95efa069a5&doaru... 3/6/28
<br />
|