North Carolina Lawyers Weekly

Plaintiffs have an easement over a gravel road on a servient tract; the new owner of the servient tract developed that tract, built a road that crosses the gravel road, and offered the road to the defendant-town for dedication. The ...

Tagged with: Municipal

Even though the defendant-city bought commercial general liability insurance, this did not waive the city’s governmental immunity, given that the policy expressly stated that the city’s purchase of insurance was not a waiver of governmental immunity under the General Statutes ...

Tagged with: Municipal

On 31 October 2019, the respondent-city’s housing appeals board upheld a notice of violation due to overgrowth and debris on petitioner’s property. Petitioner was notified that he had 15 days to appeal, yet he did not file notice of appeal ...

Tagged with: Municipal

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 ...