Court Opinion

ID: 9740574
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:37:32.884702+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.947539
License: Public Domain

Currie, C. J.
(concurring). I concur fully in the court’s opinion written by Mr. Justice Hallows.
This concurring opinion has been prompted by the statement therein that neighboring property owners acquire no vested rights against rezoning because of their reliance upon the original zoning. While this is a correct statement of the law, the harm which would result to such neighboring property owners, who have purchased or improved their properties in reliance upon the existing zoned use, should always be considered by a municipal zoning authority confronted with a request for spot zoning.
Plaintiffs have attacked the county’s action in refusing to rezone their property, which action was grounded on the wishes of neighboring property owners. This may well be a sound and valid basis for the refusal to rezone since protection of surrounding property values usually accords with promotion of the common good and general welfare of the community.1 Spot zoning to be accomplished through rezoning should only be *151indulged in where it is in the public interest and not solely for the benefit of the property owner who requests rezoning, absent any showing that a refusal to rezone will in effect confiscate his property by depriving him of all beneficial use thereof.2 Here the testimony discloses that plaintiffs’ five-acre parcel has a value of at least $8,000 for residential purposes.

 See 8 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. (3d ed., 1965 rev.), pp. 59 et seq., sec. 25.26.

 On spot zoning generally, see 1 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, ch. 26.