Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/07/1997

Home

Page 6 - August 25, 1997 Z.B. Messer and Hunt claimed Hunt's sale of the property was irrelevant because they were suing for damages. DECISION: Appeal dismissed; appeals court decision vacated. There was no need to consider Messer and Hunt's appeal because Hunt's sale of the property in question rendered the appeal moot. Hunt's sale of the property for $1.5 million rendered any controversy between Hunt and the town irrelevant. Messer's interest in the property wasn't enough to allow him to maintain a constitutional challenge to the zoning amendment apart from Hunt's. By selling the property for $1.5 million, Hunt proved the town's case by showing his property still had "a practical use and a reasonable value" following the zoning amendment. The town didn't waive its right to raise the mootness question by failing to raise it before the appeals court. "Whenever during the course of litigation it develops that '" the questions originally in controversy between the parties are no longer at issue, the case should be dismissed, for courts will not entertain an action merely to determine abstract propositions of law." see also: Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). Conditional Use - Is town's refusal to consider 'subjective' criteria unreasonable? Baker v. Town of Rose Hill, 485 S.E.2d 78 (North Carolina) 1997 Cargill Inc. wanted to build a soybean-meal transfer facility in the town of Rose Hill, N.C. The property was in a mixed-use zoning district, which allowed industrial uses if they complied with the town's zoning ordinance. Cargill applied to the town for a conditional use permit to build the soybean facility. The planning board held a public hearing and recommended that the town deny Cargill's request. The town board held its own public hearing and found Cargill "met the conditions applicable to such a conditional use permit." The town issued Cargill the permit with 13 conditions. In issuing the permit, the town board made written findings on all but two of the requirements for a conditional use permit in the town zoning ordinance. It didn't mention whether the requested use would "impair the integrity or character of the surrounding. district" or whether it was "essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare." The town's attorney said the omitted requirements were subjective and not appropriate to consider in the conditional- use decisionmaking process. Neighbors who opposed the facility appealed the town board's decision to court. The court returned the matter to the town board for it to make specific findings regarding the omitted requirements. The town board reconsidered the matter and concluded Cargill met the two additional requirements as well. Specifically, it found the area in question was more industrial than residential because it was located between two large feed mills and was immediately adjacent to a railroad track used for hauling ~ 3