According to court rulings, a rezoning does NOT constitute spot zoning if?

A rezoning does not constitute spot zoning when it is enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Spot zoning refers to the practice of singling out a small area for different zoning rules than the surrounding areas, which can create inconsistencies and is often viewed negatively by courts.

When a rezoning aligns with a comprehensive plan, it indicates that the decision is part of a broader, well-thought-out strategy for land use in the community, rather than an arbitrary change intended to benefit a specific property or individual. Comprehensive plans consider various factors like land use, population growth, infrastructure needs, and community goals. This alignment ensures that the rezoning serves a public purpose and contributes to the overall development strategy of the area, thus reducing the likelihood of it being challenged as spot zoning.

Other options do not inherently provide the same legal protections against being classified as spot zoning. For instance, unanimous approval may suggest consensus among legislators but does not ensure that the change aligns with the overarching community objectives. Similarly, while a lack of appeal might imply acceptance of the change, it does not address the substantive relationship to the comprehensive plan. Lastly, permitting special exceptions or waivers could suggest flexibility in zoning, but does not necessarily confer legitimacy or alignment with community-wide planning goals.