Municipal – Conditional Zoning – Two Owners
North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff//February 25, 2011//
Wally v. City of Kannapolis. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-16-0192, 15 pp.) (Ann Marie Calabria, J.) Appealed from Cabarrus County Superior Court. (Michael E. Beale, J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Click here for the full text of the opinion.
Holding: Where the defendant-city rezoned 76 acres owned by two entities, this was not spot zoning.
We affirm summary judgment for the city.
Since spot zoning has been held to occur when a tract of land is owned by a common owner, the city’s action of zoning the property at issue cannot be considered spot zoning.
The city’s unified development ordinance provided in part, “If any standards are proposed [for the conditional zoning district] that are different from the underlying zoning district, the applicant must clearly demonstrate that the overall resultant project is greater than that which is typically allowed in the general district.”
The city interpreted this provision to mean that the project must have higher architectural standards than those required for a typical development in the underlying district. The owners’ representatives submitted conceptual drawings showing the building elevations for the office portion of the property complex.
At the meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission on Nov. 7, 2007, the owners’ representatives submitted photographs of architectural features they proposed for the development. From this information, the city evidently concluded that the project would exceed the design standards of a typical development in the underlying development district.
Affirmed.
Top Legal News
- Bulldozer operator settles after losing leg in job site incident
- New York sues Kalshi, says its prediction markets are illegal gambling
- Fiduciary duty claims survive while standalone specific performance claim dismissed
- Judge dismisses suit accusing Zillow of kickback, racketeering schemes
- Settlement agreement did not terminate LLC membership
- Settlement may have mooted insurer’s coverage dispute
- Raleigh ed-tech company pays six figures to resolve EEOC disability discrimination charge
Legal Tech
- AI in practice: How new technology is affecting litigation practice
- Experts foresee legal malpractice risk for those who eschew AI
- Legal Decoder launches AI-powered billing analytics interface
Commentary
- Legally Speaking: How communication failures turn disputes into lawsuits
- We tore out our own backup generator
- When is a PIP an adverse employment action?
- Legally Speaking: What spring can teach us about active listening
- A useful patent management government notice
- Opinion: NC judges have enormous power. Be sure to vote in November
- The third option: Why your best employees are quietly losing their edge
- AI divorce is real, but family law can still save itself




