McDowell v. Randolph Cty.Â, 808 S.E.2d 513

Plaintiffs Maxton and Wanda McDowell own residential property adjacent to land (the Subject Property) used by McDowell Lumber Co.; the Subject Property was conditionally zoned (CZ‑RIO) in 2010 with an approved site plan.
In 2016 McDowell Lumber sought and obtained county approval to modify the approved site plan to relocate a chemical vat within the Subject Property (no change to the CZ‑RIO zoning classification).
Plaintiffs sued, alleging the 2016 action was arbitrary and capricious, violated the statutory requirement for a consistency statement, and constituted illegal spot zoning.
Defendants (Randolph County and the Board of County Commissioners) moved for summary judgment; the trial court granted defendants’ motion and denied plaintiffs’.
The Court of Appeals reviewed the record de novo as to summary judgment and applied the whole‑record test for challenges to zoning decisions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s approval of the modified site plan was arbitrary and capricious	The Board acted in bad faith/whimsically in approving the modification relocating a chemical vat	The approval was supported by testimony and findings that the modification reduced emissions, traffic and environmental risk	Not arbitrary or capricious; approval had plausible bases and bore relation to public welfare
Whether the Board adopted a valid statement of consistency under N.C.G.S. § 153A‑341	The Board failed to contemporaneously adopt a sufficient consistency/ reasonableness statement	The minutes include a statement tying the decision to specific Growth Management Plan policies and stating the action is reasonable and in the public interest	Statement was sufficient because it described consistency with the Plan and explained why the action was reasonable and in the public interest
Whether the 2016 action constituted illegal spot zoning	The modification effectively reclassified or singled out the parcel improperly	The 2016 action only approved a site‑plan modification; the zoning classification was set in 2010 and any spot zoning challenge to that classification was time‑barred	Not spot zoning; no reclassification occurred in 2016 and prior challenges were untimely

Summers v. City of Charlotte, 149 N.C. App. 509 (explains arbitrary and capricious standard and whole‑record test)
Ashby v. Town of Cary, 161 N.C. App. 499 (deferential review where rezoning has plausible relation to public welfare)
Northwest Prop. Grp., LLC v. Town of Carrboro, 201 N.C. App. 449 (application of whole‑record test to zoning findings)
Wally v. City of Kannapolis, 365 N.C. 449 (requires a governing board to adopt a statement describing consistency with the comprehensive plan and why action is reasonable and in the public interest)
Morgan v. Nash County, 224 N.C. App. 60 (statutory parallel between city and county consistency requirements)
Atkinson v. City of Charlotte, 235 N.C. App. 1 (statement that merely recites statutory language is insufficient)
Blades v. City of Raleigh, 280 N.C. 531 (definition of spot zoning)
Childress v. Yadkin County, 186 N.C. App. 30 (spot zoning not per se invalid if reasonable basis is shown)