Laserfiche WebLink
120 <br /> <br />Page 6 -- October 10, 2003 <br /> <br /> The city denied the conditional use permit. <br /> Butler appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> The conditional use permit was correctly denied. <br /> Butler failed to produce uncontroverted evidence to ensure the proposed <br />use would not be detrimental to the safety or general welfare of the residents. <br /> Butler also tailed to overcome the evidence of the adverse psychological <br />impact on residents' ability to use and enjoy their property. <br /> Since the use failed to comply with standard one of the ordinance, it was <br />unnecessary, to address the others. <br />Citation: Butler v. City. Council of' the City. of Clinton, Court of Appeal~ of <br />North Carolina, No. COA02-1268 (2003). <br />see also: Mann Media v. Randolph County Planning Board,.565 S.E. 2d 9 (2002). <br />see also: Sun Suites Holdings L.LC v. Board of Aldermen of Town of Garner, <br />533 S.E. 2d 525 (2000). <br /> <br />Zoning Change -- Developer wants to build more than three homes <br />Expert claims current zoning ecotzomically infeaxible <br /> <br />OHIO (08/25/03) -- Grand Communities Ltd. sought a zoning change to al- <br />low it to build a new development. Under the current zoning for the property, <br />Grand Communities could continue to use it as a farm or build only three ex- <br />pensive homes on the property. It claimed there was no economically .feasible <br />use for the land. <br /> Grand Communities' experts testLfied the current zoning of the property <br />for a~icuttural use was not economically feasible. Also, the cost of runmng a <br />sewer line to only three homes would be unaffordable. Finally, the demograph- <br />ics, income levels, and other market choices available to buyers would not <br />support a development with homes in the $300,000 range. <br /> The court ruled in favor of the township, finding the experts' testimony <br />insufficient. <br /> Grand Communities appealed. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> Grand Communities provided sufficient evidence to support its zoning <br />request. <br /> Grand Communities' experts provided adequate testimony to prove it was <br />not economically feasible to continue to farm the land or to build only three <br />homes on the property. <br /> Although the township also referenced traffic and safety concerns related <br />to roads, controlling traffic alone is not the primary purpose of zoning, but may <br />be a secondary, consideration. <br /> Importantly, the township presented no testimony to rebut the experts' <br /> <br /> <br />