Laserfiche WebLink
<br />April 25, 2008 I Volume 21 No.8 <br /> <br />See.also: Adams Outdoo1' Advertising v. Board of Zoning Appeals of <br />City of Virginia Beach, 261 Va. 407, 544 S.E.2d 315 (2001); Segaloff <br />v. City of Newport News, 209 Va. 259, 163 S.E.2d 135 (1968). <br /> <br />Constitutionality~Property owner is fined for <br /> <br />failure to comply with code requirement he <br /> <br />reside on property with garage apartment <br /> <br />Property owner challenges zoning ordinance as <br />unconstitutional <br /> <br />Citation: City of Wilmington v. Hill, 2008 WL 563998 (N. C. Ct. <br />App. 2008) <br />NORTH CAROLINA (03104/08)-BroaQus Hill owned property <br />in the city (the Property). The Property was located in a district that <br />was zoned. single-family residential. However, garage apartments <br />were permitted as an accessory use. Hill applied for and obtained a <br />building permit to build a garage apartment on the Property. A year <br />later, Hill was notified that his property was in violation of the city's <br />land development code (the Code). <br />Section 18-285(g) of the Code required the owner of a garage <br />apartment to reside either in the main residence or the gar!lge apart- <br />ment. Hill did not reside on the Property. <br />Ultimately, Hill was fined $5,000 for violating the Code. <br />The city filed an action in small claims court to recover the $5,000 <br />fine from Hill. The magistrate found for the city. Hill appealed to the <br />district court, which set the case for mandatory arbitration. An arbi- <br />tration award and judgment was entered in the city's favor. Hill re- <br />quested a new trial, alleging the ordinance was unconstitutional. The <br />court found for Hill. The court declared part of the ordinance uncon- <br />stitutional, and declared the citations against Hill citations null and <br />void. The city appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />The court first concluded that it had jurisdiction and could hear <br />the matter. The city had argued that it could not because Hill had <br />failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court disagreed. The <br />court found that Hill did not have to exhaust administrative remedies <br />before bringing his claim to the court.. The court noted that where an <br />aggrieved party challenged the constitutionality of a regulation, ad- <br />ministrative remedies were considered inadequate and their exhaus- <br />tion was not required. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />35 <br />