|
<br />
<br />
<br />:~~
<br />
<br />Ii
<br />
<br />I
<br />':1i~~~~
<br />III
<br />
<br />''::';[;:~~
<br />
<br />r~!
<br />
<br />~~~~~
<br />
<br />neighborhood conditions
<br />since the original zoning
<br />ordinance was adopted is a
<br />highly relevant factor in
<br />judging the validity of
<br />rezoning. If a rezoning
<br />reflects or is appropriate to
<br />the changes, evidence of
<br />the changed conditions
<br />will rebut any contention
<br />thatrt was not done in
<br />accordance with a
<br />comprehensive plan. (See
<br />Bassani v. Board of County
<br />Commissioners for Yakima
<br />COllnty.) Where the
<br />zoning board finds that
<br />there have been substantial
<br />changes in the
<br />neighborhood and a zoning change will promote the property's
<br />orderly development and be in harmony with the
<br />comprehensive plan, the rezoning usually will withstand
<br />challenge. (See Sullivan v. Town of Acton.) Conversely, where
<br />changed conditions exist in support of a rezoning, a zoning
<br />board cannot simply raise the comprehensive plan as a defense
<br />[0 its refusal to rezone. Even though a requested zoning change
<br />may conflict with the comprehensive plan, if changed
<br />conditions mean that strict conformity with the plan fails to
<br />advance the public health, safety, and general welfare, the
<br />refusal to rezone may be deemed unreasonable. (See DeKalb
<br />County v. Albritton Properties, Inc.)
<br />
<br />Athough the findings and
<br />decisions of local zoning
<br />bodies generally are
<br />cloaked with a presumption
<br />of validity, they are
<br />nevertheless frequently
<br />challenged as being
<br />arbitrary, capricious, and
<br />failing to advance
<br />legitimate police power
<br />. objectives.
<br />
<br />Spot Zoning
<br />The validity of rezoning decisions may likewise be challenged
<br />on "spot zoning" grounds. Spot zoning, in general terms, means
<br />the rezoning of a single tract of land, usually small in size, so
<br />that it is zoned differently from all surrounding property (for
<br />example, a lot rezoned commercial is surrounded by property
<br />zoned for residential use). Where the rezoning permits a use
<br />that is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan for the area, is
<br />incompatible with the surrounding uses, grants a discriminatory
<br />benefit to the parcel owner, and/or harms neighboring
<br />properties or the community welfare, it may be invalidated as
<br />illegal spot zoning. [See Budd v. Davie County, 447 S.E.2d 449
<br />(N.C. App. 1994) (rezoning from residential to industrial was
<br />illegal spot zoning).]
<br />In determining whether a zoning change constitutes spot
<br />zoning, the courtS will consider the character of the area that
<br />surrounds the rezoned parcel. [See Verdecchia v. Johnston
<br />COUJl!J', 589 A.2d 830 (R.I. 1991).] A change in conditions in
<br />the area surrounding a rezoned parcel may indicate that the
<br />original zoning classification is no longer justifiable. [See Boland
<br />v. Ci!JlofGreatFalfs, 910 P.2d 890 (Mont. 19%); County
<br />Commissionmfor Yakima County, 853 P.2d 945 (Wash. App.
<br />1993).] Defendants in spot zoning challenges may make this
<br />argument to counter allegations that the rezoned parcel is
<br />incompatible with the surrounding area. [See Bell v. City of
<br />Elkhom, 364 N.W.2d 144 (Wis. 1985).] Further, a rezoning
<br />applicant may advance this theory to support approval of a
<br />
<br />A1ark Dennison is an attorney and author who practices
<br />environmental, land-we. and zoning law in Westwood. New Jersq.
<br />
<br />2
<br />
<br />requested zoning change. Thus, a local zoning body's refusal to
<br />rezone may itself constitute illegal spOt zoning where changed
<br />conditions exist. [See Ross v. City ofYorba Linda, 2 Cal.Rptr.2d
<br />638 (Cal. App. 1991); Ci!J1 of Miami v. Woodlawn Park
<br />Cemetery' Co., 553 So.2d 1227 (Fla. App. 1989).]
<br />In determining whether a rezoning is compatible with the
<br />surrounding area, planners must examine the tract relative to the
<br />vast majority of the land immediately around it, not just a small
<br />tract located in the vicinity. For example, where a single parcel is
<br />rezoned from residential to business use and is surrounded by
<br />many acres zoned for residential use, it makes little difference
<br />that it may be in conformity with another nearby parcel zoned
<br />for business use. [See Mahaffey v. Forsyth COllnty, 394 S.E.2d 203
<br />(N.C. App. 1990).] The predominant use in the area provides
<br />the yardstick against which the rezoning must be measured for
<br />compatibility with neighboring uses. In fact, a small pocket of
<br />less restrictive use located in the vicinity may itself have been the
<br />result of former spot zoning action. [See Covington v. Town of
<br />Apex, 423 S.E.2d 537 (N.C. App. 1992).] It cannot form the
<br />basis for asserting compatibility between the challenged rezoning
<br />and uses in the surrounding area.
<br />
<br />Changed Circumstances
<br />Although the findings and decisions oflocal zoning bodies
<br />generally are cloaked with a presumption of validity, they are
<br />nevertheless frequently challenged as being arbitrary, capricious,
<br />and failing to advance legitimate police power objectives.
<br />Because the purpose of rezoning is to adjust local zoning
<br />districts and regulations to accommodate changing development
<br />patterns and community needs, challenges usually focus on
<br />evidence of changed conditions. Whether or not changed
<br />conditions support a rezoning is a question that can be answered
<br />only by evaluating:
<br />1. What area reasonably constitutes the "neighborhood"
<br />surrounding the subject property.
<br />2. What changes have occurred in that neighborhood since the
<br />zoning ordinance or latest amendment was enacted,
<br />whichever occurred later.
<br />3. Whether these changes resulted in a change in neighborhood
<br />character sufficient to justifY the rezoning.
<br />The determination of whether changed conditions are
<br />sufficient in nature and degree to warrant rezoning is flexible
<br />and allows for consideration of each case on its own facts.
<br />Whether the challenge is to the approval or denial of a rezoning
<br />request, the courts consider various factors when determining
<br />the sufficiency of changed conditions, including changes in
<br />traffic, the surrounding area, and the subject property, that
<br />property's suitability for uses permitted under the existing
<br />zoning, and the public need for the rezoning.
<br />Traffic Changes. The development of interstate highways
<br />and busy thoroughfares has changed considerably the residential
<br />character of many areas. Still, evidence of increased traffic is
<br />usually not sufficient justification in itself for a zoning change.
<br />[See Cardon Investments v. Town of New A1arket, 485 A.2d 678
<br />(Md. 1984).] The evidence must reveal that other relevant
<br />changes have occurred in addition to or as a result of the
<br />increased traffic to supporr a rezoning based on changed
<br />conditions. [See Jefferson Count)' v. 0 'Rorke, 394 So.2d 937
<br />(Ala. 1981 ).]
<br />A common scenario involves property owners in a residential
<br />neighborhood contesting the rezoning of adjacent land from
<br />residential to business or commercial use. In challenging a
<br />
<br />. f , ,
<br />
|