NCJS, LLC v. City of Charlotte, Corp.
255 N.C. App. 72
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- NCJS, LLC owns an I-1 industrial parcel with a 1970 warehouse divided into leasable units; two dumpsters sit adjacent to the warehouse and are visible from public view.
- Charlotte amended its Zoning Ordinance in 1984 to require dumpsters to be screened on three sides (CZO §12.303), but that provision applies only when "land is developed or land and structures are redeveloped."
- In 2015 the zoning administrator issued a notice of violation (NOV) to NCJS for unscreened dumpsters; NCJS appealed, arguing the screening requirement never triggered because the property had not been developed or redeveloped since 1984.
- The City Board affirmed the NOV, concluding unscreened dumpsters existing at the time of the 1984 amendment were "nonconforming structures" under CZO §2.201 and lost their nonconforming status when moved, citing photographic evidence of dumpster relocation on the site.
- The superior court affirmed the City Board; NCJS obtained certiorari review in superior court and appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dumpsters are "nonconforming structures" under CZO §2.201 | NCJS: Dumpsters are permitted accessory structures and not nonconforming unless §12.303 was triggered by development/redevelopment | City: Dumpsters existing when screening was adopted became nonconforming and thus subject to nonconformance rules | Court held City misinterpreted CZO; dumpsters are not nonconforming absent a §12.303 trigger |
| Whether moving a dumpster terminated nonconforming status | NCJS: Not applicable because dumpsters were never nonconforming | City: Movement causes loss of nonconforming status under §7.103(6) | Court rejected application—movement analysis improper because nonconforming status was never established |
| Whether City met its burden to prove a current zoning violation | NCJS: City failed to prove any trigger for §12.303; thus no violation | City: Relied on aerials/photos to show relocations and nonconformity | Court held City failed to prove a current violation; burden not satisfied |
| Proper remedy for erroneous NOV | NCJS: NOV should be rescinded | City: Enforcement should stand based on Board's ruling | Court reversed and remanded with instructions to rescind the 4 Feb 2015 NOV |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris Commc’ns Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 365 N.C. 152 (2011) (appellate review may decide dispositive legal errors without remand)
- Lanvale Props., LLC v. Cnty. of Cabarrus, 366 N.C. 142 (2012) (plain-language statutory interpretation governs)
- Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cnty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1 (2002) (trial court must identify and apply correct review standards)
- CRLP Durham, LP v. Durham City/Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 210 N.C. App. 203 (2011) (scope of superior court review of zoning board decisions)
- Shearl v. Town of Highlands, 236 N.C. App. 113 (2014) (burden on local authority to prove existence of a zoning violation)