Laserfiche WebLink
<br />April 25, 20091 Volume 31 No.8 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Case Note: In reaching its conclusion, the Commonwealth Court <br />had also stated that the second plan caused "confusion and pro- <br />tracted proceedings" which resulted in the failure to rule on the :first <br />plan. Prior case law had provided that an applicant creating con- <br />fusion by submitting two inconsistent subdivision plans rendered <br />,~ 508's 90-day protection inapplicable. Again disagreeing with the <br />Commonwealth Court, the Supreme Court found there was no such <br />evidence of confusion on the part of the Board. <br /> <br />Standing-Landowner challenges validity <br />of zoning ordinance i <br /> <br />County contends landowner lacks standing because it had <br />not sought to or planned to develop its land <br /> <br />Citation: Thrash Ltd. Partnership v. County of Buncombe, 673 S.E.2d <br />689 (N.c. Ct. App. 2009) <br /> <br />NORTII CAROLINA (03/17/09)-In March 2007, the county en- <br />acted a Multi-Family Dwelling Ordinance (the "Ordinance"). The Or- <br />dinance applied one set of rules for properties located above 2500 above <br />sea level, and another set of rules for properties located 3000 feet above <br />sea level. The Ordinance did not apply any rules to property located be- <br />low 2500 feet above sea level. <br />LottPartnership II ("Lott") owned a parcel of land in the county. Lott <br />filed an action in court, seeking to have the Ordinance declared invalid. <br />Lott alleged that in adopting the Ordinance, the county failed to adver- <br />tise the public hearing on the Ordinan~e as required by State statute. <br />The county asked the court to dismiss Lott's action. It contended that <br />, Lott did not have standing (i.e., the legal ability to challenge the Ordi- <br />nance) because it neither had sought a permit to develop its land nor had <br />active plans to build multi-family units on its land. <br />The trial court disagreed with the county. It found that Lott had <br />standing. However, on the substantive issue (i.e., the validity of the Ordi- <br />nance), the court ruled in the county's favor. <br />Lott appealed. On appeal, the county again argued that Lott did not <br />have standing. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. <br /> <br />The court held that Lott had standing to challenge the validity of the <br />Ordinance. <br /> <br />8 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />36 <br /> <br />/--"", <br />i 'J',\ <br />\. ,1 <br /> <br />ii <br />i\ <br />I, <br />II <br />II <br />" <br />Ii <br />,I <br />ii <br />Ii <br />I' <br />'I <br />Ii <br />~ ! <br />ii <br />!\ <br />L <br />I' <br />,i <br />d <br />i! <br /> <br />" <br />i: _ <br />ii <br />if <br />1l <br />d <br /> <br />:[ <br />;! <br />Ii <br />ij <br />'I <br />ii <br />'I <br />I: <br />ii <br />!! <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />" <br />il <br />II <br />" <br />II <br />!l <br />I; <br />1! <br />'I <br />!I <br />:1 <br />J <br />" <br />II <br />'i <br />U <br />:, <br />I; <br />II <br />p <br />,\ <br />l' <br />d <br /> <br />II <br />II <br />!] <br />U <br />!! <br />'I <br />