Laserfiche WebLink
December 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 24 Zoning Bulletin <br />court also determined that "the language in the UDO [was] clear in prohibit- <br />ing shooting ranges even though it [did] not specifically mention `shooting <br />ranges' by name." The appellate court found that "[i]t would be absurd to <br />state that a use is allowed as a matter of right everywhere in a county, simply <br />because the county failed to list the use expressly by name in its ordinance." <br />Here, the court relied on the language of the UDO that prohibited uses not <br />specifically listed in the table of permitted uses. <br />The Landowners again appealed. <br />DECISION: Judgment of court of appeals reversed. <br />The Supreme Court of North Carolina agreed with the Landowners' inter- <br />pretation of the UDO. The court held that the UDO's failure to expressly al- <br />low shooting ranges could not be construed to implicitly prohibit shooting <br />ranges, notwithstanding the language in the UDO that prohibited all uses not <br />explicitly allowed. <br />In so holding, the court rejected the philosophy in the UDO language that <br />"everything is proscribed except that which is allowed." The court said that <br />prohibiting all uses not specifically listed as permitted "fail[ed] to clearly <br />place the public on notice as how a particular use is to be classified absent an <br />explicit mention in the [ordinance]." Noting that zoning regulations are in <br />derogation of common law rights, the court explained that zoning regulations <br />cannot be construed to include or exclude by implication that which is not <br />clearly expressed in the ordinance's terms. <br />In summary, the court found it clear that the law favors "uninhibited free <br />use of private property over governmental restrictions." The court found it <br />would be both "absurd" and "unlawful" to automatically disallow an <br />otherwise legal use simply because the government failed to identify it by <br />name in a zoning ordinance. <br />See also: Land v. Village of Wesley Chapel, 206 N. C. App. 123, 697 S.E.2d <br />458 (2010). <br />Case Note: <br />The Supreme Court of North Carolina's decision was based on "the reasons stated in <br />the dissenting opinion" of the Court of Appeals' decision. <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters <br />