Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

Z.B. SePtember 10, 2003 -- Page 3 a dental office with about 6,000 square feet of space. They filed for both a permit and a rezoning request, which would enable them to start conslractio~t. ; A number of local residents opposed the project and sig-ned a protest, peti- tion. The city council conducted a hear/rig on Sept. 5, 2000, and finally voted to amend the Land Use Plan and Map so that the Novaks' lots were reverted to low density residential. The city council also voted to deny the Novaks' rezoning reque.st. There was no vote taken on the permit application because the denial of the rezoning request prevented the lots from being used as a dental office. On Oct. 9, 2000, the Novaks sued, requesting a declaratory order challeng- ing the decision of the city council to refuse to rezone the lots. They also at- tempted to depose -- take testimony under oath -- the city counc/t to ~k about communications between the city council and the mayor about this mat- ter. The city asked for and received a protective order. Later, the city asked for judgment without a trial. The superior court ~anted the city's request for judgment without a trial, and the Novaks appealed. They challenged the g-ranting.of the protective order and judgment. DECISION: Reversed in part. The protective order and rezomng decisions were affarmed. However, the denial of the permit claim was reversed. The communications the Novaks were concerned about allegedly involved the rezoning request. Since rezonmg was a le~slative act that entitled the city council members and mgyor to absolute legislative immunity, the granting of the protective order was not an abuse of discretion. Further, the lower court did not err in granting judgment. The decision to deny the rezoning request was considered a reasonable means of implementing the city's goals of promoting safety and limiting traffic in the neighborhood. The court noted that changes in the Land Use Plan did not constitute rezoning. When the Land Use Plan designated the subject lots from low-density residen- tial to office use, this process merely set out guidelines for the "guidance of zoning policy." Finally, the court decided that the city erred in not choosing to grant or deny tile Novaks' permit application. The city was required to make separate decisions regarding the rezoning and permit requests. Citation: Novak v. City of High Point, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, Nos. COA02-727 & COA02-728 (2003). see also: Village Creek Property Owners Association Inc. v. Town of Edenton, 520 S.E. 2d 793 (1999). Constitutional Claims -- Owner expands woodworking business while applying for permits Business denied perrnits and permanently sto!Jped frorn operating PENNSYLVANL~ (7/3/03) -- In 1970, the township adopted a zoning ordinance 109