Tag Archives: special-use permit

Real Property – Zoning – Special Use Permit — Municipal – Franchise – Landfill – Constitutional – Taking Claim (access required)

Griffin Farm & Landfill, Inc. v. Town of Unionville Three authorizations are required to build and operate a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill: local zoning approval, a local government franchise, and a permit from the state. Where plaintiffs stopped accepting C&D waste seven months before their franchise expired, and where the defendant-town exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs a new franchise, plaintiffs did not have a common law vested interest to a new franchise agreement.

Read More »

Real Property – Billboard Lease – Municipal — Zoning – Special Use Permit (access required)

MCC Outdoor, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest Plaintiff’s forecast of evidence indicates that the defendant-town caused plaintiff’s billboard to be removed since the only reason the new landowner did not extend plaintiff’s lease was because the town’s special use permit forbade it. However, the town’s forecast of evidence indicates that the new landowner would not have allowed the billboard to remain, even absent the special use permit condition.

Read More »

Municipal – Zoning – Special Use Permit – Findings of Fact (access required)

Templeton Properties, L.P. v. Town of Boone On a prior appeal, we remanded so the respondent-town’s board of adjustment could make reviewable findings of fact based on its 2007 public hearings. Instead, the board allowed new testimony from opponents of petitioner’s application for a special use permit -- while not allowing new testimony from petitioner -- and made findings of fact that were obviously influenced by the new testimony.

Read More »

Municipal – Zoning – Special Use Permit – Reduction in Area (access required)

Wake Forest Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Town of Wake Forest Where a golf club voluntarily designated its entire golf course as open space in its 1999 Planned Unit Development application and thereafter exercised the right to develop the property in accordance with the special use permit, it was not an abuse of discretion for the local board of commissioners to refuse to consider the country club’s 2009 application to reduce the area covered by the special use permit in order to selectively develop the rest of the property for residential use.

Read More »