02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

December 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 23 Zoning Bulletin rezoning was invalid. They contended that the rezoning was ille- gal spot zoning and was therefore void. They did not challenge the Board's annexation of the Property. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute and de- ciding the matter on the law alone, the court granted summary judgment in the town's favor. The court found the rezoning was not illegal spot zoning. Musi and Sabalos appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. ( ---') The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the rezoning was not illegal spot zoning. In so holding, the court explained that "spot zoning" is "azon- ing ordinance or amendment that 'singles out and reclassifies a rela- tively small tract"': (1) "'owned by a single person"'; and (2) '''sur- rounded by a much larger area uniformly z<:med.'" illegal spot zon- ing relieves such a small tract of land " 'from restrictions to which the rest of the area is subjected.''' Here, noted the court, the Property was not owned by a single person, but rather was owned by six owners. Additionally, the Prop- erty was not "surrounded by a "much larger area uniformly zoned." Musi and Sabalos had argued that "a rezoning of propertY oWned by more than one person [could] still constitute spot zoning." They argued that" although the Property had multiple owners, the rezon- "ing was illegal spot zoning because: (1) the owners of most the.tracts were members of the same extended family; and (2) the owners of the tracts had a f'common interest." The court disagreed and rejected this argument. The court found that North Carolina case law provided that spot zoning could only occur with the rezoning of a parcel with "one owner." The court further found that Musi and Sabalos had failed to cite any authority for the exceptions they claimed, nor could the court find any. Furthermore, the court noted that the area surrounding the Prop- erty was not zoned uniformly. It was zoned under at least several different zoning categories. See also: Good Neighbors of South Davidson v. Town of Denton, 355 N.C. 254, 559 S.E.2d 768 (2002). See also: Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531, 187 S.E.2d 35 (~) (1972). 10 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 72 (~ \ ) I I I I I I I i I i 1 I I I ! I I I I I I I 1 I I I i