Mount Ulla Historical Preservation Society, Inc. v. Rowan County (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-07-0154, 16 pp.) (Ann Marie Calabria, J.) Appealed from Rowan County Superior Court (W. David Lee, J.) N.C. App. Holding: Nothing in the record suggests that lowering a ...Read More »
Municipal – Zoning – Superior Court Review – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Writ of Certiorari – Statutory Requirements – Permittee
Philadelphus Presbyterian Foundation, Inc. v. Robeson County Board of Adjustment (Lawyers Weekly No. 14-16-0040, 20 pp.) (Sam Ervin IV, J.) Appealed from Robeson County Superior Court (Robert F. Floyd Jr., J.) N.C. App. Unpub. Holding: When petitioners sought judicial review ...
Tagged with: Philadelphus Presbyterian FoundationRead More »
Blair Investments, LLC v. Roanoke Rapids City Council The city planning department’s report – based on its review of petitioner’s 100+-page application – and the testimony of the planning director constituted competent, material, and substantial evidence that petitioner was entitled to a special use permit to put a cell tower in the respondent-city’s I-1 Industrial zone.
Tagged with: residentsRead More »
Myers Park Homeowners Association, Inc. v. City of Charlotte Charlotte’s local streets are characterized, in part, by low speed limits, while its collector streets have low to moderate speed limits. Although Wellesley Avenue’s speed limit is only 25 mph, respondent’s traffic expert testified that most of the miles on Charlotte’s collector streets have speed limits of 25 mph.
Tagged with: Charlotte ZoningRead More »
Municipal – Civil Practice – Subject Matter Jurisdiction – Zoning – ‘Applicant’ – Corporate – Administrative Suspension
Whitson v. Camden County Board of Commissioners Even though Camden Plantation Properties, Inc.’s articles of incorporation were suspended between the time Camden Plantation applied for a conditional use permit (CUP) and the time the permit was granted, since Camden Plantation was in good corporate standing at the time it submitted its application, and since it owned the subject tract of land, Camden Plantation was an “applicant” within the meaning of G.S. § 160A-393(e). Accordingly, petitioner was required to name Camden Plantation as a respondent in his petition for judicial review of the granting of the CUP
Tagged with: Camden PlantationRead More »
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
Tagged with: MunicipalityRead More »
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.Read More »
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.
Tagged with: psychicRead More »
Municipal – Zoning – Nonconforming Use – Alterations ‘Required by Law’ – Civil Practice – Appeals – Notice – Email
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.
Tagged with: ZoningRead More »