Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2008

Home

Zoning Bulletin illy and locate the property; the other notice methods were designed to give the public more information. The court also rejected the residents' argument that a genuine issue of material fact existed :regarding whether all eligible property own- ers received written notification. State law (S 160A-384(a)) required the person who mailed the notice to certify the notification was sent. It also provided that such certificate was conclusive in the absence of fraud. The court said that the allegations of thirteen property owners that they did not receive written notice from the town did not cre- ate an issue of material fact .regarding the town's compliance with the mail notification requirements. Rather, the court said, since the resi- dents failed to allege any fraud in the mailing, the town's zoning tech- ;nician's affidavit that she mailed notice to all required properties was conclusive that she complied with the notice requirements. Finally, the court disagreed with the resident's claim that state law did not allow the town to grant exceptions that lowered the standards of the ordinance for a particular developer. UnderState law (S160A- 382(b)), in a qmditional district, conditions and site-specific standards must be limited to those that address the conformance of the develop- ment and use of the site with city ordinances and comprehensive plans. The residents argued that the town could only enforce the standards of an underlying district or more restrictive conditions. The residents argued that the rezoning ordinance listed decreased the standards with twenty exceptions to the UDO. The court noted that when a condi- tional district was required, the UDO expressly allowed petitioners to ask that certain identified standards be decreased. The town's approv- al of the conditional district in the ordinance met the requirements of the UDO, the court found. Therefore, the court concluded, the town complied with the state law. The court noted that a zoning ordinance is presumed to be valid and the burden is on the complaining party to show it to be invalid. The court found the residents only alleged that. the exceptions failed to bring the development more into compliance with the UDO. The residents failed to carry their burden and show the ordinance was invalid, the court concluded. See also: Safran Corp. v. City of Greensboro, 327 N.G. 125, 393 S.E.2d 767 (1990). 12 136 /-,\ ,,--.-. )