Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />effect when they purchased the property. Moreover, the evidence <br />showed that the highest and best use of the property was that of a. <br />residential home.and garage. <br /> <br />See also: Eck v. City of Bismarck, 283 N. W2d 193 (N.D. 1979). <br /> <br />~ <br />i \ <br />1 I <br /> <br />Case Note: The court did find that the injunction was overly <br />broad to the extent that it did not allow one non-family mem- <br />ber employee to mobilize for work on the Bogers' property. The <br />ordinance allowed one non-family member employee in a home <br />occupation. Accordingly, the court modified the injunction to al- <br />low one non-family member employee to mobilize for work on <br />the Eogers' property. <br /> <br />Conditional Use Permit-City residents challenge issuance <br />of conditional use permit for law enforcement center <br /> <br />Residents argue proposed center fails to conform with the <br />surrounding neighborhood in violation of the city's zoning <br />ordinance <br /> <br />Citation: McDonald v. City of Concord, 655 S.E.2d 455 (N.C. Ct. <br />App.2008) <br /> <br />The county applied to the city for a conditional use permit (CUP) <br />to allow the county to construct a Law Enforcement Center (LEe) <br />on approximately ten acres in the city. The LEC was to include three <br />buildings: a sheriff's operations/administration building; an annex; <br />and a jail house and support building. The LEC was to be located <br />across from the existing jail. It also was to be located in the portion <br />of the site zoned central city. The remainder of the site, which was <br />not to be developed, was zoned residential compact. <br />The city approved the CUP. In doing so, the city concluded that <br />each of six criteria in the zoning ordinance had been met. One of <br />those criteria required the "proposed conditional use conform to the <br />character of the neighborhood, considering the, location, type, and <br />height of buildings or structures and the type and extent of land- <br />scaping. and screening on the site." City residents (the "Residents") <br />appealed the city's CUP approval. <br />The superior court affirmed the city's grant of the CUP. The Resi- <br />dents appealed, arguing (1) the city's conclusion that the LEC con- <br />formed to the character of the neighborhood was not supported by <br />substantial evidence; and (2) the city's grant of the CUP was a.rbi--"-. <br />trary and capricious. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />144 <br />