Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

Page 8 -- July 25, 2005 Compliance-- Landowner claims nursery is immune from zoning rules Changed use of land from residential to a landscaping business Citation: Cordeil Earthworks b~c. v. The Town of Chapei Hill, Court of Appeals of North Carolirta, Nos. COA04-189 & COA04-190 (2005) NORTH CAROLINA (06/07/05) -- Cordell Earthworks Inc. owned land in an agricultural zone allowing agricultural or very low intensity residential uses. Although commercial uses were not allowed tn the zone, CordelI was operating a landscaping business on its prope.rty. The town cited Cordell for zoning vi°lations. C9~rdell appealed, arguing it was operating a nursery, not a landscaping business, and was exempt from the zoning ordinances because nurseries were with.in the bona fide, or good faith, farm exception to the zoning rules. Even so, the town refused to issue a zoning compliance permit to allow Cordell to continue its use. Cordell sued, and the court ruled in favor of the town. Cordell appealed, arguing there was not enough proof that it was violating the ordinance by using its land commercially. DE CISION: A filmed. Cordell's use of the land violated the ordinance. Evidence showed Cordell began using its property as a landscaping business without applying for a zoning compliance permit. The land had been used as a single-family residence before Cordell began renting the land, and regardless of · whether Cordell was Operating a nursery or a landscaping businessl its use of the land was a change i_n use. Any change of use required a zoning compliance permit. The town's zoning officer testified the town received a signed complaint from Cordell's neighbors. When the officer went to inquire about the property, She saw signs advertisihg mulch, along with bobcats, mulch, ~opsoil, gravel, and company trucks. A Cordell representative explained to the officer that Cordell had been search' lng for.a different location to move the business because it had been so successful. A neighbor testified trucks and trailers were coming and going from the property from as early as 6 a.m. until as late as 7:30 p.m. to pick up mulch or gravel in bulk. Landscaping equipment and materials were main- tained on the property, and. it was advertised as a landscape business in the phonebook. Finally, no farming had taken place on the land for at least 40 years. Therefore, the town provided suffiCient evidence to show Cordell's use of ' the land was commercial and constituted a zoning violation. see also: Capital Outdoor Inc. v. G~tilford Comity Board of Adjustment, 567 S.£.2d 44.0 (2002.). see also: North Carolina Department of EJwironmental & Natttral Resottrces v. Carroll, 599 S.E. 2d 888 (2004). · © 2005 Quinlan Pubiishin(] Group, Any reproduction is prohibi[ed. For more iniormation please call·(617) ,.542-0048. 226