By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: August 17,2011
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.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 27,2011
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.”
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: July 20,2011
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.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 24,2011
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.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 21,2011
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.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 17,2011
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.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: June 17,2011
Royal Palms MHP, LLC v. City of Wilmington Petitioners failed to show what anyone who was not given the chance to speak at a public hearing would have said. Moreover, 20 people spoke out against annexation while only three spoke in favor, and petitioners have failed to show what additional speakers against annexation could have added to the discussion.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 27,2011
S.T. Wooten Corp. v. Board of Adjustment (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-07-0538, 20 pp.) (Cheri Beasley, J.) Appealed from Wake County Superior Court. (Robert H. Hobgood, J.) N.C. App. Holding: In response to petitioner's inquiry, the respondent-town's land use administrator (LUA) said in a letter that petitioner's proposed use - an asphalt plant - was a permitted use of petitioner's land in an area zoned heavy industrial. The LUA's decision was binding, and the town could not later require petitioner to obtain a special use permit for its asphalt plant.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 20,2011
Wilson v. Mebane Board of Adjustment Where the respondent-landowner made its expenditures and the city's zoning ordinance was amended before the landowner received a building permit, the landowner did not acquire a common law vested right under the zoning ordinances as they existed before they were amended.
By North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff
Published: May 19,2011
Cunningham. v. City of Greensboro A trial judge acted permissibly in declaring that the contractual provisions under which a defendant town attempted to annex the plaintiffs' properties were unenforceable. In so deciding, we reject the defendant's claims (1) that the trial court's decision contravened various statutory provisions governing the activities of municipal governments and (2) that the contractual provisions upon which the defendant relies were either valid covenants that ran with the land or enforceable equitable servitudes.
NC Lawyers Weekly keeps you connected with the latest legal news, Daily Practice and Breaking
News alerts.
Sign up for NC Lawyers Weekly email alerts
State v. Squires When a state trooper saw a pickup truck on the side of the road after midnight and stopped to see if any assistance was needed, he was not required to leave after a person outside the truck told him everything was okay. The trooper did not impermissibly extend the stop when he checked on the driver of the vehicle.
State v. Rouse Even though, in his opening and closing statements, defense counsel referred to the arresting officers as “very good officers,” counsel did so in the context of arguing that everyone makes mistakes. Counsel could have reasonably made a tactical decision to refrain from challenging the officers’ general professionalism and competence, while still encouraging the jury to find that the officers arrested defendant on May 23, 2010 as a result of their inadvertent mistakes.
Robinson v. North Carolina Department of Correction Where plaintiff testified that, all the way around his wrist, there were “teeth marks” from too-tight handcuffs and that his wrist was bruised and swollen, but where a drawing plaintiff made to document his injuries indicated that only his left finger and thumb were swollen with no indication of bruising, discoloration, a cut or “teeth marks” laterally around his wrist, the evidence supports the Industrial Commission’s finding that plaintiff’s drawing was inconsistent with his testimony regarding his injuries.
Pickney v. Department of Transportation Even though the parties’ settlement agreement provided that plaintiff could “request a job reallocation or pay grade increase” and that defendant would “cooperate with such a request,” the settlement agreement did not provide plaintiff with any guarantee that he would actually receive a job reallocation or pay grade increase upon request. Even if plaintiff proved that defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to cooperate with his request for a second job reallocation, plaintiff’s evidence provided no basis upon which the trial court could have properly calculated damages.
