Amward Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Our Court of Appeals held that the defendant-town was not responsible for setting up or funding schools, and it lacked statutory authority to charge developers and/or builders a fee designed to ensure adequate funding for area schools. With Justice Jackson not participating, the remaining members of the court are equally divided, with three members voting to reverse and three members voting to affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In re Appeal of Peacock Even though the board of adjustment’s rules required it to enter its final decision in its minutes, and even though this was not accomplished until July 14, 2010, since the board’s written ruling was issued and signed by the zoning administrator and board chairman on May 17, 2010 and then filed with the town’s records on May 18, 2010, G.S. § 160A-388(e2) required petitioner to seek judicial review by June 18, 2010, and his July 28, 2010 petition was untimely.
Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc. v. Town of Pineville Where the plaintiff-restaurant took down its nonconforming sign to replace the awning underneath it and then put the same sign back up on the new awning, the restaurant “replaced” the sign within the meaning of the defendant-town’s zoning ordinance.
We affirm the superior court’s order upholding the town’s citation of the restaurant for violations of the zoning ordinance.
McCrann v. Village of Pinehurst Petitioners did not make a formal request for notice of the village council’s decision, and their petition for judicial review was filed 31 days after the council filed its decision.
We affirm the superior court’s dismissal of the petition as untimely filed.
Capps v. City of Kinston The city did not comply with the requirements of G.S. § 160A-48(e) when it fixed certain boundaries of the annexation area since, although the boundary lines may run parallel to the road, they are not located on either a recorded property line or on a street.
We affirm in part and remand in part.
Edmondson v. City of Rocky Mount Petitioners challenge a necessary land connection (NLC), which forms part of an involuntary annexation. Where petitioners’ challenge is based on their argument that the NLC is not “contiguous” with city limits and urban areas, their argument fails because G.S. § 160A-48(d) requires only that an NLC be “adjacent,” not “contiguous.”
Premier Plastic Surgery Center, PLLC v. Board of Adjustment Even though the respondent-town’s zoning code prohibits more than one sign for multi-tenant commercial properties, a board of adjustment’s principal function is to issue variance permits so as to prevent injustice by the strict application of an ordinance. The superior court erred in finding that the respondent-board of adjustment had no authority to grant the variance requested by petitioner.
Reversed in part and remanded.
Wake Forest Golf & Country Club, Inc. v. Town of Wake Forest Where a golf club voluntarily designated its entire golf course as open space in its 1999 Planned Unit Development application and thereafter exercised the right to develop the property in accordance with the special use permit, it was not an abuse of discretion for the local board of commissioners to refuse to consider the country club’s 2009 application to reduce the area covered by the special use permit in order to selectively develop the rest of the property for residential use.
Morris Communications Corp. v. Bessemer City Zoning Board of Adjustment The respondent-board of adjustment’s interpretation of the undefined term “work” in its outdoor sign ordinance was overly restrictive. Petitioner was working toward the relocation of its sign by communicating with DOT about the parameters of its highway expansion project, renegotiating its lease with the landowner, and obtaining a county building permit; petitioner was not required to be doing actual construction work to comply with respondent’s ordinance.
We reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision, which upheld the superior court’s order affirming respondent’s demand that petitioner’s sign be removed.
STB of Charlotte, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Adjustment Respondents’ zoning ordinance requires that an adult establishment be separated by at least 1000 feet from any residential district, school, church, child care center, park or playground; one basis for a variance from the separation requirement is the existence of natural or man-made geographic or topographic features to protect the neighborhoods, etc. from any secondary effects of the adult establishment.
