Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/15/2015

Home

September 10, 2015 1 Volume 9ssue 17 � IZoning Bulletin The trial court had determined that the rezoning was illegal spot zoning because Matt Behe was the sole owner receiving a special benefit. The ap- pellate court disagreed. It noted that the definition of spot zoning requires a single owner of property, not a single person benefitting from the rezoning. The court found that since the parcel was not owned by an indi- vidual (an essential element in the definition of spot zoning), but rather Matt and Philip Behe, as father and son, then the rezoning was not illegal spot zoning. Accordingly, the court concluded that the rezoning did not constitute spot zoning as North Carolina courts have defined it. See also: Musi v. Town of Shallotte, 200 N.C. App. 379, 684 S.E.2d 892 (2009) (spot zoning claim involving parcels owned by six different owners from same extended family). See also: Alderman v. Chatham County, 89 N.C. App. 610, 366 S.E.2d 885 (1988) (spot zoning claim involving parcel owned by husband and wife). See also: Budd v. Davie County, .116 N. C. App. 168,170, 447 S.E.2d 449 (1994) (spot zoning claim involving land owned by a mother and a strip of land running from that tract owned by her son). Case Note: The Neighbors had also alleged that the County's rezoning of the fwo-acre parcel was arbitrary and capricious and was therefore void and of no effect. The trial court had agreed. On appeal, however, the appellate court found that the trial court's findings on that issue amounted to findings offact that went beyond its ju- risdiction in ruling on a summary judgment motion. As such, the appellate court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the matter for a new summary judg- ment hearing. Variance—Property owner seeks "Critical Area Variance" to build pier across marsh Opponents of project argue variance standards are not met . Citation: Assateague Coastal Trust, Inc. v. Schwalbach, 117 A.3d 606 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2015) MARYLAND (07/02/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether an applicant for a critical area variance met all required standards for the variance. It also addressed the issue of whether in granting a use variance, the local land -use board was required to make express written findings that the landowner had overcome a statutory presumption of nonconformance. 6 © 2015 Thomson Reuters