Town of Sandy Creek v. East Coast Contracting, Inc. Although construction of a sewer system may be a governmental function, a municipality acts in a proprietary function when it contracts with engineering and construction companies, regardless of whether the project under construction will be a governmental function once it is completed
Fairway Outdoor Advertising v. Town of Cary Reading the respondent-town’s land development ordinance as a whole, petitioners’ appeal from the town’s notice of violation should have been taken within 30 days, yet petitioners did not appeal for nearly a year. The appeal was untimely.
Moore-King v. County of Chesterfield, Va. A Virginia county may require a “spiritual counselor” who offers psychic readings to obtain a business license and follow local zoning laws; the 4th Circuit says she is entitled to some First Amendment protection, but the county has not unconstitutionally abridged her free speech rights, nor has it violated RLUIPA or plaintiff’s right to equal protection.
MNC Holdings, LLC v. Town of MatthewsThe superior court correctly interpreted the respondent-town’s zoning ordinance as allowing a property owner with a nonconforming use to make alterations “required by law” in general – not just alterations required to ensure the structure’s safety.
Fields v. City of Goldsboro When the defendant-city demolished plaintiff’s house, G.S. § 160A-443(6)(c) required the city to salvage personal property from the house and to credit proceeds of the sale of such property against the cost of demolition.
Affordable Housing Group of North Carolina, Inc. v. Town of Mooresville The respondent-town rejected petitioners’ application for a conditional use permit to build an apartment complex in a Highway-Business zone in part because the project would not be in conformity with the town’s comprehensive plan.
American Towers, Inc. v. Town of Morrisville In order to get a special use permit to erect a cell phone tower in the respondent-town, petitioner was required to show that the tower would not substantially injure the value of adjoining property. Petitioner’s real estate expert failed to make that showing; therefore, the superior court properly upheld the denial of petitioner’s application to erect a telecommunications tower.
Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head The defendant-town denied plaintiffs a building permit because their application was incomplete; therefore, plaintiffs cannot challenge a new town ordinance based solely on the town’s threatened or hypothetical denial of a permit under the new ordinance.
Livingston v. Robeson County (Lawyers Weekly No. 12-16-0764, 15 pp.) (John C. Martin, Ch.J.) Appealed from Robeson County Superior Court. (Robert F. Floyd Jr., J.) N.C. App. Unpub.
Holding: The denial of petitioner’s application for a permit to operate a group home was based entirely on evidence of the generalized fears of neighbors; therefore, the denial of the conditional use permit was not based on substantial, material and competent evidence in the record, and it was arbitrary and capricious.
Huggins, t/a SADISCO of Md. v. Prince George’s County, Md. A property owner who operated a salvage automobile wholesaling business on a parcel adjacent to Andrews Air Force Base’s CERCLA Superfund site, and whose business was cited for numerous county code violations, loses an appeal of the dismissal of its due process and state law claims against Prince George’s County, Md., for shutting down the salvage business pursuant to a consent order; the 4th Circuit says the owner failed to prove oral contracts under Maryland law.