Court Opinion

ID: 9582411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:26:23.206355+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:45.938351
License: Public Domain

Justice BUTTERFIELD
dissenting.
This case is before this Court solely on the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals. Challenging the majority’s holding with regard to the issue of harmony, the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals concluded, “There was plenary evidence before the Board that [the proposed] tower would be located adjacent to an existing mixed suburban/agricultural area and would not be in harmony with this area.” Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cty. Planning Bd., 142 N.C. App. 137, 144, 542 S.E.2d 253, 258 (2001) (Walker, J., dissenting). Because the dissent did not specifically address the issues regarding public safety or property values, the only issues squarely before us are (1) whether petitioners presented competent, material, and substantial evidence that the proposed use would be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located; and (2) if so, whether there existed in the record competent, material, and substantial evidence contrary to petitioners’ showing of harmony to support the Board’s denial of petitioners’ permit application. I agree with the holding of the majority of the Court of Appeals that petitioners made a prima *20facie showing of harmony and that the record contained insufficient evidence to sustain the Board’s adverse conclusion. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.
As this Court recognized in Woodhouse v. Board of Comm’rs of Nags Head, 299 N.C. 211, 261 S.E.2d 882 (1980):
“The inclusion of the particular use in the ordinance as one which is permitted under certain conditions [] is equivalent to a legislative finding that the prescribed use is one which is in harmony with the other uses permitted in the district’ ”
A. Rathkopf, 3 Law of Zoning and Planning, 54-5 (1979).
Woodhouse, 299 N.C. at 216, 261 S.E.2d at 886. In other words, “[a] conditional use is a permitted use when allowed under a special permit. Thus, there has been a local legislative determination that the use, as such, is neither inconsistent with the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, nor out of harmony with the [county’s] general zoning plan.” 3 Arden H. Rathkopf & Daren A. Rathkopf, Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 61:20, at 61-42 (Edward H. Zeigler, Jr., ed., 2001).
Furthermore, the denial of an application on grounds that the proposed plan “does not meet the tests of suitability” as outlined in the intent section of a particular ordinance is no different from refusing a permit because the proposed use would “adversely affect the public interest.” A [county planning board] “cannot deny applicants a permit in their unguided discretion or, stated differently, refuse it solely because, in their view, [it] would “ ‘adversely affect the public interest.’ ” In re Application of Ellis, 277 N.C. [419,] 425, 178 S.E.2d [77,] 81 [(1970)].
Woodhouse, 299 N.C. at 216-17, 261 S.E.2d at 886 (second alteration in original).
Notably, the majority accepts the Court of Appeals’ pronouncement that “ ‘[t]he inclusion of a use as a conditional use in a particular zoning district establishes a prima facie case that the permitted use is in harmony with the general zoning plan.’ ” Mann Media, Inc., 142 N.C. App. at 139, 542 S.E.2d at 255 (quoting Vulcan Materials Co. v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs, 115 N.C. App. 319, 324, 444 S.E.2d 639, 643, disc. rev. denied, 337 N.C. 807, 449 S.E.2d 758 (1994)). Therefore, by showing that the Randolph County ordinance *21denominates radio and television broadcast towers as special uses within Residential-Agricultural districts, petitioners have made a prima facie showing that their proposed use would be in harmony with the surrounding area. Nonetheless, in denying petitioners’ application, the Board concluded that “[t]he location and character of the use if developed according to the plan as submitted and approved [would] not be in harmony with the area in which it is to be located.” Specifically, the Board found that the proposed tower would be inharmonious with the surrounding properties because the population density of the area adjacent to the proposed site was “substantially greater” than that of areas surrounding “previously approved” towers. Aerial maps of the proposed tower and the Channel 2 television tower comprised the evidence supporting this conclusion. A comparison of the two maps showed that a residential subdivision was under construction in an area bordering the proposed site and that the area surrounding the Channel 2 tower was predominantly rural. The transcript of the hearing further reveals concerns that an additional tower would result in “over-saturation” and, thereby, upset the existing harmony of property uses within the area.
However, under the Woodhouse standard, the Randolph County ordinance’s designation of broadcast towers as permitted uses within residential-agricultural districts is equal in effect to a “legislative finding” that such towers are compatible with residential communities. See Woodhouse, 299 N.C. at 216, 261 S.E.2d at 886. Therefore, to conclude that the proposed tower would be incompatible with the area solely because of its proximity to a densely populated residential subdivision is at odds with the intent expressed in the ordinance. Because I believe that the Board’s determination as to harmony was not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, I vote to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.