Laserfiche WebLink
<br />March 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No.6 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Finding there were no substantial issues of material fact, and deciding <br />on law alone, the trial court issued summary judgment for the county. . <br />Fcr appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed and remanded. <br /> <br />," <br />(, ) <br /> <br />The Court of Appeals of North Carolina agreed with FCI's arguments. <br />It held that the county cocld "not use its broad police powers as a guise <br />to enact zoning regulations for manufactured homes inconsistent with <br />[the state zoning. statute addressing manufactured homes,] N.C. Gen. I <br />Stat. ~ 16GA-383,1." The county could not adopt the Ordinance under <br />the general powers given-to it by ~ 153A-121, but rather had to ensure . <br />compliance with the state's manufactured homes statute, N.C. Gen. Stat. <br />~ 160A-383.1, which clearly controlled. <br /> <br />Under ~ 160A-383.1 the county's power to enact zoniIig regulations <br />for manufacturedhomes was limited to appearance.and dimensional cri- <br />teria. The intent 01 the Ordinance's restriction on manufactured homes <br />based solely on the age of the home was to increase the tax base by elim- <br />ination of housing which rapidly depreciated in value. This, found the <br />court, was a wealth based criterion. Since it was "neither an appe.arance <br />nor dimensional criteria," the court held that the county exceeded its au- <br />thority in adopting the Ordinance. () <br />./ <br /> <br />See also: White v. Union County, 93 N.c. App. 148, 377 S.E.2d 93 <br />(1989). <br /> <br />Validity of Zoning Decision/Contract Zoning- <br />City denies -Iandownersl requested re-zone <br /> <br />Landowners aUege denial was arbitrary and city engaged in <br />illegal contract zoning - . <br /> <br />Citation: Hector v. City of Fargo, 2009 ND 14, 760 N.W.2d 108 (N.D. <br />2009) - <br /> <br />NORTH DAKOTA (02/03/09)-Fred and Earlyne Hector owned <br />land (the "Land''-) in the city. The Land was zoned "agricultural." That <br />classification allowed the Land to be used for agricultural purposes, de- <br />tached houses, parks and open space, utilities, day care, safety services <br />and telecommunications. <br />In April 2007, The Hectors submitted to the city a request for amend- <br />ments to the are,a growth plan and zoning map. The Hectors sought to <br />_ have portions ottheir land re-zoned "general coinmercial." That zoning <br />designation would have allowed the Land to be used for retail, service, <br />offi<;:e and commercial uses. <br /> <br />( ) <br />'--- <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />I' <br />J <br />i <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />36 <br />