## Facts

- A 75.9-acre tract was annexed by the City of Kannapolis in 2007 at the owners’ request, making the tract subject to the city’s zoning ordinance and land use plan.
- The owners sought a zoning amendment to permit more intensive commercial development.
- City planning staff prepared a report concluding the proposal was consistent with adopted plans and reasonable in light of infrastructure.
- The Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing, recommended approval, and adopted the staff report as its own statement regarding consistency and reasonableness.
- The City Council received the staff report and the commission recommendation, held its own meeting, and voted to approve the zoning amendment.
- The City Council did not separately vote to approve a substantive statement addressing plan consistency and why the action was reasonable and in the public interest; it instead used a generic form resolution asserting the vote conformed to applicable guidelines.
- Neighboring landowners sued for declaratory relief, alleging statutory noncompliance and illegal spot zoning; the trial court granted summary judgment for the City and the court of appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the City Council approved the statement required by N.C.G.S. § 160A-383 describing plan consistency and explaining why the zoning amendment was reasonable and in the public interest.
2. Whether the rezoning constituted illegal spot zoning.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina reversed.
- The court held the City Council did not approve the statement required by N.C.G.S. § 160A-383 when adopting the zoning amendment.
- The court rejected the argument that the planning staff report or the planning commission’s adoption of it satisfied the City Council’s statutory duty.
- The court held the council’s generic “conformity” language did not meet the statute because it did not address plan consistency or explain reasonableness and public interest.
- The zoning amendment was invalid and void, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.
- Because the amendment was void on statutory grounds, the court did not reach the spot-zoning claim.

## Legal Principles

- When adopting or rejecting a zoning amendment, the governing board must approve a statement describing whether the action is consistent with an adopted comprehensive plan and other applicable adopted plans, and explaining why the action is reasonable and in the public interest. (N.C.G.S. § 160A-383)
- The duty to approve the statement rests with the governing board; staff reports or planning-board actions do not satisfy the requirement absent affirmative governing-board approval.
- Boilerplate procedural assertions that a vote conforms to guidelines are insufficient if they do not address plan consistency and do not explain reasonableness and public interest.
- Failure to comply with N.C.G.S. § 160A-383 renders the zoning amendment invalid and void.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of North Carolina invalidated the City of Kannapolis’s rezoning amendment because the City Council did not affirmatively approve the statutorily required statement of plan consistency and reasons supporting the amendment’s reasonableness and public-interest basis, and remanded without reaching the separate spot-zoning challenge.


Wally v. City of Kannapolis, 365 N.C. 449, 722 S.E.2d 481 (2012)