Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/07/2009

Home

I I (0" " - {)I (-.'); ,~- i . i Zoning Bulletin March 25, 20091 Volume 3 I No.6 final approval of a subdivision plan, a developer could seek relief by bringing a mandamus action. Although the Kitrases had sought__ such relief, their petition was not brought _within the time period _al- lowed by law. Thus, they were left without a Board endorsement or a town clerk certificate. Accordingly, the eight-year zoning freeze was not triggered. Conflicting Regulations-County adopts ordinance prohibiting certain manufactured homes based solely on age of home Business argues ordinance exceeds county's statUtory authority Citation: Five C'S, Inc. 1!. County of Pasquotank, 2009 WL 365645- (N.C. Ct. App. 2009) NORTH CAROLINA (02/17/09)-In May 2001, the county adopted an ordinance (the "Ordinance") that prohibited manufact1ired homes more than 10 years old from being brought into the county "for the pur- pose of permanent set-up." Five C's, Inc. ("FCI") was in the busirtessof acquiring mobile and manufactured homes for sale, transportation, and set up within the -coun- ty. In September 2001, FCI filed a legal action against the county. Among other things, it asked the court to declare that the Ordinance exceeded the CO),lIlty's statutory a1,lthority. It argued that the county's general pow- er to enact ordinances under ~ 153A-121 of the North Carolina Gen- eral Statutes "was preempted with regard to the zoning of manufactured housing when-the General Assembly adopted N.C. Gen. Stat. ~~ 153A- 341.1 and 160A-383.1." Under those sections: (1) the General Assembly declared the importance of manufactured housing for low and moderate income residents; and (2) gave counties the authority to adopt by ordi- nance appearan,ce and dimensional criteria for manufactured homes. FCI asserted that because the Ordinance's restriction of the location of man- ufactured homes within the county based solely on age was neither ~n appearance nor .dimensional criteria, it exceeded the county's statutory authority. - The county contended that the Ordinance was within its authority un- der its police power to protect the health, safety, welfare, and environ- ment within the county. It said that the intent of the Ordinance was to increase the tax base by eliminating housing that rapidly depreciated in value. (According to the tax administrator, manufactured homes substan- tially decreased in value during the first 10 years.) . @ 2009 Thomson Reuters IL______._.__._ 5 35