Opinion ID: 1292234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Did the Borough Assembly engage in unconstitutional spot zoning when it rezoned the seventy-five acres in Nugget Loop? [69]

Text: Balough argues that the Borough Assembly's decision to rezone the seventy-five acres at issue from GU-1 to RR was constitutionally impermissible spot zoning. Specifically, Balough argues that the rezone itself was motivated by a discriminatory animus and was but a blatant attempt to deprive [her] of the existing use of [her] property in order to benefit the persons initiating the rezone. Balough's claim of spot zoning essentially alleges that the Borough Assembly violated her rights to substantive due process because it acted arbitrarily and did not have a reasonable basis for the rezoning. FNSB, however, argues that the Borough Assembly's decision to rezone does not fit the definition of spot zoning. We have stated that the `classic' definition of spot zoning is `the process of singling out a small parcel of land for a use classification totally different from that of the surrounding area, for the benefit of the owner of such property and to the detriment of other owners.' [70] In Griswold v. City of Homer , this court stated that it would consider the following three factors in determining whether a zoning ordinance constituted unconstitutional spot zoning: (1) the consistency of the amendment with the comprehensive plan; (2) the benefits and detriments of the amendment to the owners, adjacent landowners, and community; and (3) the size of the area `rezoned.' [71] We conclude that Balough did not allege facts that amount to a prima facie case of spot zoning. Balough's brief does not address any of the factors that this court stated were necessary in determining whether an ordinance constitutes unconstitutional spot zoning. Rather, Balough's brief makes only conclusory statements regarding the Borough Assembly's decision to rezone the seventy-five acres. As the extensive discussion of spot zoning in Griswold demonstrates, whether an ordinance is unconstitutional spot zoning is case-specific. [72] Balough's brief is devoid of any evidence to support her claim that the Borough Assembly acted in an unconstitutionally arbitrary way. Specifically, Balough never addressed whether the Borough Assembly's decision to rezone was consistent with FNSB's comprehensive plan, whether the rezoning unfairly benefitted a private owner, or whether the size of the area rezoned did, or did not, suggest spot zoning. [73] Additionally, pursuant to the spot zoning analysis set out in Griswold, Balough's one-sentence assertion that the Borough Assembly acted with discriminatory animus is irrelevant to a substantive due process claim that the Assembly engaged in spot zoning. [74]