Morgan v. Nash County
224 N.C. App. 60
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- The City of Wilson and others challenged Nash County's second rezoning of the subject property to General Industrial.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Nash County on all remaining claims and dismissed the City for lack of standing; other plaintiffs were found to have standing.
- Plaintiffs sought appellate review and a petition for certiorari to review a Rule 60(b) advisory and Nash County’s attorneys’ fees arising from that motion.
- CGP created Coastal Plain Land Company to facilitate recruiting Sanderson Farms; Coastal acquired an option to purchase the subject property in September 2010.
- Subject property was separated from separate hatchery and sprayfield tracts; a six-mile sewer line would be needed to serve sprayfields.
- Nash County purchased 142 acres of the subject property in December 2010; Sanderson Farms delayed its decision about locating facilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge rezoning | City claims injury to water supply from wastewater disposal supports standing. | Zoning did not directly enable the challenged harm; lack of redressability. | City lacked standing; no direct injury attributable to rezoning. |
| Compliance with § 153A-341 | Board failed to adopt a statement of reasonableness before rezoning. | Board contemporaneously adopted a valid statement of reasonableness with the amendment. | Board satisfied § 153A-341; proper contemporaneous adoption. |
| Illegal contract zoning | Rezoning was conditioned on Sanderson Farms' use and thus illegal contract zoning. | No reciprocal assurances or obligation by Board; not contract zoning. | No illegal contract zoning. |
| Consideration of all permissible uses | Board failed to consider all permissible uses of the reclassified General Industrial district. | Board list and minutes show consideration of all permitted uses; duties satisfied. | Board fulfilled its duty; all permissible uses were considered. |
| Rule 60(b) petition and attorneys’ fees | Plat evidence should be considered; trial court should address Rule 60(b). | No new information; advisory ruling was within discretion; fees improperly awarded after appeal. | Advisory opinion affirmed; attorneys’ fees award vacated for lack of jurisdiction during appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires actual injury and redressability)
- Taylor v. City of Raleigh, 290 N.C. 608, 227 S.E.2d 576 (1976) (standing requires direct effect from zoning action)
- James River Equip., Inc. v. Tharpe’s Excavating, Inc., 179 N.C. App. 336, 634 S.E.2d 548 (2006) (statutory interpretation and harmonization of provisions)
- Wally v. City of Kannapolis, 722 S.E.2d 481 (2012) (void zoning without proper statement of reasonableness in similar statute)
- Kerik v. Davidson County, 145 N.C. App. 222, 551 S.E.2d 186 (2001) (must consider all permitted uses; compliance with uses list)
- Hall v. City of Durham, 323 N.C. 293, 372 S.E.2d 564 (1988) (contract zoning requires reciprocal obligations; not present here)
- Allred v. City of Raleigh, 277 N.C. 530, 178 S.E.2d 432 (1971) (approval based on specific plans does not compel finding of contract zoning)
- Chrismon v. Guilford County, 322 N.C. 611, 370 S.E.2d 579 (1988) (illegal contract zoning requires reciprocal obligations)
- Neuse River Found., Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 155 N.C. App. 110, 574 S.E.2d 48 (2002) (standing prerequisites and appellate review standards)