Chrismon v. Guilford County
322 N.C. 611, 1988 N.C. LEXIS 483, 370 S.E.2d 579 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Conditional use zoning is a valid exercise of a local government's zoning power, provided the action is reasonable, in the public interest, and does not constitute illegal spot or contract zoning. Rezoning a small parcel is permissible if there is a reasonable basis for it, and it does not become illegal contract zoning if the government retains its independent legislative discretion and does not enter into a reciprocal, binding agreement with the landowner.
Facts:
- Since 1948, Bruce Clapp operated a business on a 3.18-acre tract in Guilford County, selling grain and agricultural chemicals.
- In 1964, the county zoned the area 'A-1 Agricultural,' which permitted Clapp's grain operation but made his agricultural chemical sales a nonconforming use that could not be expanded.
- In 1969, William and Evelyn Chrismon purchased land from Clapp and built a home adjacent to another 5.06-acre tract owned by Clapp.
- Beginning in 1980, Clapp expanded his agricultural chemical operation onto the 5.06-acre tract next to the Chrismons' property, constructing new buildings and grain bins.
- The Chrismons complained to the county about increased noise, dust, and traffic from the expansion.
- On July 22, 1982, the county Inspections Department notified Clapp that his expansion was an impermissible expansion of a nonconforming use and suggested he could apply for a rezoning.
- Clapp applied to rezone both tracts from A-1 to 'Conditional Use Industrial District' (CU-M-2) and submitted a conditional use permit application specifying he would continue his existing operations.
- At public hearings, numerous local farmers and a petition with 88 signatures supported the rezoning, citing the benefit of Clapp's business to the agricultural community.
Procedural Posture:
- The Guilford County Board of Commissioners approved Bruce Clapp's application to rezone his property and issued a conditional use permit.
- William and Evelyn Chrismon filed an action in Superior Court (trial court) seeking a declaratory judgment to invalidate the zoning amendment.
- The trial court, after a trial without a jury, concluded the rezoning was valid and was not illegal spot zoning or contract zoning, entering judgment for the defendants.
- The Chrismons, as appellants, appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that the rezoning constituted both illegal spot zoning and illegal contract zoning.
- Guilford County and Bruce Clapp, as appellants, petitioned the Supreme Court of North Carolina for discretionary review, which was granted.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a county's rezoning of a small parcel of land from a general agricultural district to a conditional use industrial district, based on the owner's specific proposed use that provides a service to the surrounding community, constitute illegal spot zoning or illegal contract zoning?
Opinions:
Majority - Meyer, Justice.
No. The rezoning of Bruce Clapp's property was a valid exercise of conditional use zoning and did not constitute illegal spot zoning or illegal contract zoning. First, the practice of conditional use zoning is a valid and flexible planning tool, and a property rezoned to a conditional use district need not be suitable for all uses allowed in the corresponding general use district. Second, while this action was 'spot zoning' by definition, it was not illegal because there was a clear showing of a reasonable basis for it; the rezoning served a public benefit by providing needed services to the local farming community, and the proposed use was compatible with the surrounding agricultural area. Third, this was not illegal 'contract zoning' because it involved only a unilateral promise from the landowner (Clapp) about his intended use, and the county board did not abandon its independent decision-making authority or enter into a bilateral, binding agreement.
Dissenting - Mitchell, Justice.
Yes. The rezoning constituted illegal contract zoning. The zoning amendment was an acceptance by Guilford County of Clapp's offer to use his property in a specific way, which is prohibited under prior precedent. Furthermore, the majority's conclusion is incorrect because in 1982, counties lacked the statutory authority to engage in conditional use zoning; that power was not granted by the General Assembly until a 1985 amendment, which was a change in the law, not a clarification of existing law.
Dissenting - Webb, Justice.
Yes. The rezoning constituted illegal contract zoning, and the majority opinion effectively overrules prior precedent from this Court, specifically 'Blades v. City of Raleigh' and 'Allred v. City of Raleigh'. The majority's new distinction between a landowner's unilateral promise (valid) and a bilateral contract (illegal) is not supported by those cases, where similar landowner proposals were found to be illegal contract zoning. There is no factual distinction between this case and the prior cases that would justify a different outcome.
Analysis:
This landmark decision formally validated the practice of conditional use zoning in North Carolina, granting local governments significant flexibility in land use planning. It established a critical legal distinction between this permissible practice and illegal 'contract zoning,' defining the latter as a scenario where the government surrenders its legislative discretion through a binding, bilateral agreement. The ruling also clarified the test for 'spot zoning,' holding that it can be legal if supported by a reasonable basis, such as a tangible public benefit and compatibility with the surrounding area, thereby shaping the modern framework for zoning challenges.
