North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Petitioner kept ten potbellied pigs as pets, but the “Limited Agriculture” provision of the respondent-town’s zoning ordinance, which applies to petitioner’s residential property, prohibits the keeping of “livestock such as . . . swine. . . .” Although petitioner may ...

Tagged with: Municipal

Plaintiff argues that the defendant-city violated its own City Council Rule 28 by holding an electronic meeting via WebEx to decide a matter that could have been postponed, i.e., the rezoning of property to allow the construction of up to ...

Tagged with: Municipal

The parties’ contract contemplated plaintiff’s restoration of the Zebulon Baird Vance Monument and the restored monument’s subsequent donation to the defendant-city. Since plaintiff had no ongoing contractual or ownership interest in the monument, plaintiff suffered neither injury nor infringement of ...

Although the plaintiff developer spent a total of $993,584 to meet its obligations under the parties’ Mitigation Measures Agreement,” much of that sum was paid to other parties, and G.S. § 160A-363(e) required the defendant-town to repay the developer only ...

Pursuant to former G.S. § 160A-424(c), the defendant-city was prohibited from requiring the owner of rental property (1) to obtain permission from the city to lease or rent or (2) to register rental property with the city. The General Assembly’s ...

The version of G.S. § 160A-314(a) in effect during the fiscal years 2016-2018 required that municipal water and sewer fees be applied to contemporaneous uses of those systems. Where the defendant-city collects and deposits “capacity” fees into its general water ...

The parties have a long history of disagreement about exactly how to bring the roads of the defendant-developers’ subdivision into compliance with North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. The trial court recognized this disagreement but failed to resolve the ...

The defendant-town asserts that it charged the plaintiff-developer future water and sewer capacity fees pursuant to the parties’ contract and not pursuant to an ordinance that is unlawful under Quality Built Homes Inc. v. Town of Carthage, 369 N.C. 15, ...

The plaintiff-developers argue that the defendant-county violated the unconstitutional conditions doctrine by assessing water and sewer fees prior to issuing permits to develop real property. The doctrine seeks to prevent the government from leveraging its legitimate interest in mitigating harms ...

  Where plaintiffs’ complaint established no basis for ownership or any other interest in a Confederate memorial statue—which plaintiffs did not claim to own and which was located on privately owned property—plaintiffs therefore alleged no legally protected interest that was ...