Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen of Town of Chapel Hill

• Decision Date: 26 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 3,3
• Citation: 286 N.C. 170,209 S.E.2d 447
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY and Flagler System, Inc., Petitioners, v. BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF the TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL et al.

Page 447

209 S.E.2d 447

286 N.C. 170

HUMBLE OIL & REFINING COMPANY and Flagler System, Inc., Petitioners, v. BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF the TOWN OF CHAPEL HILL et al.

No. 3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 26, 1974.

F. Gordon Battle, Bryant, Lipton, Bryant & Battle, P.A., Chapel Hill, K. Byron McCoy, Newsom, Graham, Strayhorn, Hedrick, Murray & Bryson, Durham, for petitioner-appellant, Humble Oil & Refining Co.

John T. Manning, Chapel Hill, for petitioner-appellant Flagler System, Inc.

Haywood, Denny & Miller by Emery B. Denny, Jr., Chapel Hill, for respondents-appellees.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The factual background of this proceeding indicates that in the early stages, decisions were favorable to the petitioners. In the concluding stages, however, the Board of Aldermen disregarded the findings of the Planning Board and concluded 'that the use would materially endanger the public health and safety if located where proposed and developed according to the plans as submitted.' These findings are tainted by evidence that the Board improperly considered a letter from the Highway Commission opposing the permit. This letter was dated nine days after the public hearing. The Board also considered and apparently was impressed by the model zoning regulations, parts of which were read into the record by a member of the Board, also after the public hearing date. The consideration of these documents was challenged by proper exceptive assignments.

By considering the Highway Commission's letter dated after the last hearing and by considering the model zoning regulations prepared by MAGDA, the Board of Aldermen committed error which the superior court, on review, failed to correct.

The recent decision of this Court between the same parties, involving a different location in Chapel Hill, was decided on January 25, 1974 (Refining Co. v. Board of Aldermen, 284 N.C. 458, 202 S.E.2d 129) and hence was not available to the Chapel Hill authorities during the consideration of this proceeding. The Court, citing abundant authority, held:

'When a board of aldermen, a city council, or zoning board hears evidence to determine the existence of facts and conditions upon which the ordinance expressly authorizes it to issue a special use permit, it acts in a quasi-judicial capacity. Its findings of fact and decisions based thereon are final, subject to the right of the courts to review the record for errors in law and to give relief against its orders which are arbitrary, oppressive or attended with manifest abuse of authority. (Citing cases.)'

'When an applicant has produced competent, material, and substantial evidence tending to establish the existence of the facts and conditions which the ordinance requires for the issuance of a special use permit, Prima facie he is entitled to it. A denial of the permit should be based upon findings contra which are supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence appearing in the record. . . . In no other way can the reviewing court determine whether the application has been decided upon the evidence and the law or upon arbitrary or extra legal considerations.

'If there be facts within the special knowledge of the members of the Board of Aldermen or acquired by their personal inspection of the premises, they are properly considered. However, they must be revealed at the public hearing and made a part of the record so that the applicant will have an opportunity to meet them by...