Zoning – Truck Stop – Unlisted Use – Component Comparison

Campbell v. City of Statesville (Lawyers Weekly No. 012-103-16, 23 pp.) (Ann Marie Calabria, J.) Appealed from Iredell County Superior Court (Tanya Wallace, J.) N.C. App. Unpub.

Holding: Since a truck stop was not one of the uses listed in the defendant-city’s Unified Development Code (UDC) matrix, the city’s planning director was required to compare a truck stop to “other uses which most closely resemble the unlisted use.” The planning director did so when he compared the proposed truck stop’s components (such as a fueling station, a convenience store, and a fast food restaurant) to other uses permitted in the city’s B-4 Highway Business zone.

We affirm the superior court’s order upholding the city’s approval of respondent Love’s Travel Stops & Country Stores, Inc.’s proposed truck stop.

Petitioners protest the City Board of Adjustment’s reliance on the zoning district statement of purpose, arguing that the UDC “does not provide enough information to apply [UDC] Section 3.03(F),” so “the Board … tried to fill the gap by relying on [UDC] provisions irrelevant to Section 3.03(F).” We disagree.

Since the proposed individual uses were permitted as of right in the B-4 zone, Planning Director David Currier determined that a truck stop was a permissible use in that zone.

The board was charged with reviewing Currier’s determination – specifically, his analysis of the individual uses and the aggregate use at issue. Part of the board’s responsibility in construing § 3.03(F) was to harmonize its directives with other portions of the UDC and to effectuate the City Council’s intent.

Decisions rendered pursuant to § 3.03(F) must be “based on a comparison of other uses which most closely resemble the unlisted use.” The B-4 zoning district ordinance – the one most pertinent to the proposed truck stop’s combined uses – contains a specific purpose and description of authorized uses, both of which benefitted the board’s inquiry into whether Currier’s comparative analysis led to a proper determination. Thus, we are not convinced that examining the purpose of the zoning district in which an unlisted use is sought to be permitted is irrelevant in any way.

Petitioners also argue that the board was required to consider facts external to the UDC when rendering its interpretation of § 3.06(F). Again, we disagree.

By its plain language, § 3.03(F) simply provides the Planning Director with a process for placing unlisted uses in the appropriate zone(s). Petitioners seek to establish an evidentiary requirement in the law, but we are not persuaded.

Since § 3.03(F)’s language is unambiguous and Currier had broad discretionary power in applying the ordinance, § 3.03(F) requires only that the Planning Director consider the proposed use (and any of its component parts) and compare it to other uses permitted by the UDO in the district(s) in question.

We reject petitioners’ argument that Currier, the board, and the superior court were required to consider external facts when interpreting § 3.03(F) as it applied to the permissibility of a truck stop in the B-4 zone.

Petitioners further contend that Currier was not permitted to engage in a piecemeal comparison of the truck stop’s proposed uses because § 3.03(F) required Currier to consider all the uses in the Use Matrix and identify the singular use that most closely resembles a truck stop, which petitioners contend is a truck terminal. However, by its plain language, § 3.03(F) directed Currier to compare other uses with the unlisted use, not base his determination solely upon which individual use most closely resembled the proposed truck stop.

Since all of the truck stop’s principal uses are permitted individually, we see no reason why Love’s cannot erect a building to accommodate all of them. The truck stop was properly evaluated by examining the sum of its parts.

Petitioners insist that the board improperly disregarded their evidence showing that a truck stop most closely resembles a truck terminal, a use that is not permitted in the B-4 zone. Yet again, we disagree.

Implicit in petitioners’ argument is the inference that the board failed to consider the impact of the type of truck traffic Love’s truck stop may generate. Yet nothing in the UDC says the acceptability of a proposed use is affected by the type of vehicular traffic it will attract.

Love’s proposed truck stop is better characterized as a full-service convenience store and restaurant than as a truck terminal, which appears to be an exclusive refuge for drivers employed by particular trucking companies. The record does not show that trucks stops most closely resemble truck terminals.

Accordingly, the board did not err in concluding that the comparison required by § 3.03(F) established that truck stops are a permissible use in the B-4 zoning district.

Affirmed.