Court Opinion

ID: 9565339
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:19:22.039325+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:34.244028
License: Public Domain

Justice MARTIN
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur with the holding of the majority that the zoning ordinance, section 502.7.3, of the City of Oxford is not unconstitutional on its face. However, I dissent from the holding of the majority that the ordinance was constitutionally applied to the plaintiff Grace Baptist Church of Oxford.
I find that in the application of the ordinance to the Grace Baptist Church, the church was denied the equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by article I, section 19 of the Constitution of North Carolina. This constitutional protection is not limited to the enactment of legislation but extends also to the administration and execution of laws that are facially valid. Maines v. City of Greensboro, 300 N.C. 126, 265 S.E. 2d 155 (1980); State v. Wilson, 262 N.C. 419, 137 S.E. 2d 109 (1964). Although the burden is upon the Grace Baptist Church to show a purposeful discrimination upon which it relies, Kresge Co. v. Davis, 277 N.C. 654, 178 S.E. 2d 382 (1971), I believe that the evidence in this case is sufficient to raise an inference of such purpose sufficient to support a finding to that effect.
*449Evidence supporting this contention in the record may be summarized as follows:
Reverend Cecil Newton;
I know of my own knowledge, from personal inspection, there are in the City of Oxford 14 churches which have no off-street parking areas, (naming them); 6 churches (naming them) which have no paved parking areas, in addition to Grace Baptist Church, 1 (Oxford United Methodist Church) which has off-street parking for its staff only, and only 1 (West Oxford Baptist Church) which has a paved parking area. That is the only church in Oxford that has paved parking.
I know of my own knowledge 10 business establishments in the City of Oxford (naming them) which have no paved off-street parking. These include a vacuum cleaner bag plant, a funeral home (changed between 1982 and 1983 from Adams Products Building); another funeral home (which added a chapel in 1982); a park; a doctor’s office (a new building in 1984); an apartment house, made into duplex apartments in 1982 to 1983; another apartment house; a Housing Authority Apartments built in 1971 to 1973; another Housing Apartments project built in 1971 to 1973; and a community center, opened from an old school building in 1981-82.
Michael Garfield Ward:
I made a point at each church to look at the parking facilities available. Oxford Baptist Church, on Main Street, had a place for about 6 or 8 cars and staff parking, nothing else; Oxford Presbyterian Church had no parking at all; Mount Calvary Holy Church, on Lanier Street, had ,a little place to park but no paved parking lot; Delrayno Baptist Church, on College Street, had a parking lot but it was not paved; Morning Star Baptist Church, on Roxboro Road, had one but it wasn’t paved; New Light Baptist Church, on Goshen Street, had one but it was not paved; Grace Baptist Church had one and it was not paved; West Oxford Baptist Church had a parking lot, the only parking lot that was paved; Oxford Church of God had a small area of parking but it was not paved; Mount Zion Holy Church on Orange Street, *450did not have a parking lot at all; New Hope Baptist Church didn’t have hardly a street to park on.
Satterwhite’s Funeral Home did not have a paved parking. A. J. Weinstein was parking on the street and sidewalk. WCBC had no paved parking. The Apartments on College Street, 206 and 208 College Street, had no paved parking. On Hillside Drive, the Housing Authority, and Crescent Drive Housing Authority did not have paved parking.
B. Frank White:
I am familiar with the Satterwhite Funeral Home and Attorney Darby’s office space in the old Adams Company building on Hillsboro Street. There has been a recent change in usage and that is reflected in the Plaintiffs’ evidence as a parking violation, which is accurate.
I am familiar with the College Street Apartments. It was two duplex apartments built after the adoption of this Ordinance, which I failed to recognize on this map (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8) that do not have paved off-street parking, and should be.
I am familiar with the A. J. Weinstein property on Broad Street, which was changed about 1981 to a vacuum bag processing. It is indicated on this map (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8) as an off-street parking violation, which it is.
I am familiar with the apartments on Cherry Street. They were built since the enactment of this Ordinance. It is correct that they have no off-street paved parking.
I am familiar with the WCBQ Radio Station. It is correct that it has no paved, off-street parking.
I am familiar with the Granville County Community Center which was the old school building on Orange and Spring Streets. It was converted to the Community Center about 1981-1982. That is correctly shown in Plaintiffs’ evidence (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8) as an off-street parking violation.
I am familiar with the Illusions Club on Granville and Hillsboro Streets. It is a nightclub. It may have changed *451owners or operators but it was being used as some type of night club prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. At one time where the car wash is on Board Street they had leased that property for off-street parking, and then later they changed hands and the lot was sold for a car wash. They do not have off-street parking now. All of that occurred since 1970.
I am familiar with the Hughes Brothers Garage on Gran-ville Street which has been changed to Mitchell Trucking. It does not have off-street parking.
I am familiar with Newton’s Welding Machine on Gran-ville Street. That does not have off-street paved parking.
All of these places came into being since the enactment of the Ordinance in 1970. A lot of these buildings were in existence before then. They have changed uses, and like all other Ordinances and all other laws, has not been enforced in its entirety.
The city contends that the church buildings described above were erected before 10 March 1970 and are thus exempted from the provisions of the ordinance. However, there is no direct specific evidence as to when any of the church buildings were erected. There are only vague opinions expressed, such as “in my opinion” and “I would say that, to the best of my knowledge,” that the “churches” were in “existence” before 1970. There is no explanation of the word “churches,” whether it means church building or the church itself. I do not find this testimony to be sufficient to support the trial judge’s conclusion that the ordinance had been uniformly enforced with respect to the parking requirement.
It is to be noted that the trial judge failed to make any factual finding as to when the various church buildings were erected. However, the trial judge did find that the sign portion of the ordinance was selectively enforced against Grace Baptist Church.
The city’s own evidence, through B. Frank White, its building inspector, shows that at least nine and perhaps more violations of the zoning ordinance have been permitted by the city and that the city has only initiated proceedings against the Grace Baptist Church for violation of the zoning ordinance. It thus appears upon *452the face of the record that the Grace Baptist Church has been singled out for prosecution. There was further sworn testimony by Reverend Cecil Newton that Mr. Ragland, City Manager of the City of Oxford, made the following statement at a meeting of the city council: “We do not want your Gospel preached here; do not need it and want you to take it elsewhere.” Although Mr. Ragland denied making this statement, this testimony is sufficient to establish an intent on behalf of the city to practice intentional, purposeful discrimination against the Grace Baptist Church. While the actions of public officials are presumed to be regular and done in good faith, Maines v. City of Greensboro, 300 N.C. 126, 265 S.E. 2d 155, I find that the entire testimony on the record is sufficient to rebut the presumption. The Grace Baptist Church has produced sufficient evidence to show that actions as to it were unequal when compared to others similarly situated.
For these reasons I would modify the decision of the Court of Appeals by holding that the city ordinance has been applied to the Grace Baptist Church in violation of its equal protection rights under the Constitution of North Carolina.