THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Thursday, July 4, 1996 TAG: 9607040588
SECTION: LOCAL PAGE: B1 EDITION: NORTH CAROLINA
DATELINE: MANTEO LENGTH: 72 lines
Attorneys presented closing arguments Wednesday in a case surrounding controversial plans to build a campground on the north end of Roanoke Island.
A Superior Court judge could rule as early as next week on the legality of an amendment to Dare County's zoning ordinance.
Wallace Harvey III of Manteo sought the change, which would permit campgrounds as a conditional use in the newly created Community Passive Recreation zone. Harvey wants to build a campground on a 47-acre tract he owns north of Manteo.
Attorneys for Harvey, along with lawyers for Dare County, contend that the county's planning board and the Dare County Board of Commissioners acted properly when they created the new zoning designation. They claim that the proposed campground is the best possible use for the land.
Lawyers for an environmental group, Friends of Roanoke Island, claim, however, that the zoning change constitutes illegal spot zoning - and should be taken out of the books. Those attorneys also contend that a campground is not consistent with the county's Land Use Plan.
First Judicial District Superior Court Judge William C. Griffin Jr. of Williamston must decide who's right in the dispute, which has divided neighbors on Roanoke Island.In closing arguments Wednesday, Harvey's attorney W. Jay Wheless disputed claims that the zoning amendment came as a result of promises members of the planning board and Board of Commissioners made to the Harveys.
``There was no meeting of the minds,'' Wheless said. ``There was no mutual assumption that it would be approved. The only promise that was made to the Harveys was that their request would be considered.''
Wheless also argued that the Dare County Land Use Plan is a ``guide'' for planners - not a binding document. The proposed facility, he said, is consistent with that plan.
Wheless pointed to a number of North Carolina cases disputing claims that the new zoning designation constituted illegal spot zoning. He argued that in order to constitute illegal spot zoning, the Harvey tract would have to be surrounded by land of a single-zoning classification.
``The only difference between the CPR designation and R-1 is the campground,'' Wheless said. ``The property surrounding this tract is zoned in three separate classifications, not one.''
He argued that the benefits of the campground far outweigh the downside.
``There's no better use of this property, in terms of the overall scope of this island, than this campground,'' Wheless said.
But Friends' attorney Brian Howell contended that the campground plan fails to achieve compatibility with the county's zoning ordinance. He pointed to a Feb. 7, 1995, memo from Planning Director Ray Sturza that expressed disappointment with the campground's sketch plan.
``I asked Mr. Sturza if he felt like he'd been had,'' Howell said. ``And he responded, `Yes, sir.' ''
Howell also relied on a number of state court decisions concerning spot zoning that supported Friends' contentions of illegal spot zoning on Roanoke Island.
``This case is not about money or tree-hugging environmentalists,'' Howell said. ``Our case is based on pragmatic views about land use and land classification.''
Howell also chided the Dare County Board of Commissioners. On Dec. 5, 1994, the seven-member board voted 4-3 to create the new conditional use classification, with Chairman Robert V. ``Bobby'' Owens Jr. casting the deciding vote.
``It would be easy to say that this is a case of politicians being politicians,'' Howell said. ``But that would do a disservice to all the contributions Commissioner Owens has made to this county. But we have to have people in positions of authority who are willing to make the hard decisions. If we don't do that as a nation, we're going to continue to drift.''
The debate over the campground issue has attracted the attention of prominent island residents, including actor Andy Griffith, an opponent of the proposed development. Griffith testified in the case and was present during the closing arguments. by CNB