Laserfiche WebLink
<br />f) <br /> <br />\', ' <br /> <br />(/j.... <br />! <br /> <br />. 1\ <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I UJ <br />I <br />i <br />I <br />'I <br />'I <br />I. <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />October 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No: 20 <br /> <br />Validity of Zoning Regulations-Zoning <br />ordinances effectively preclude developer from <br />constructing residences on land in county <br />I <br /> <br />Developer says ~rdinances are invalid under state law <br />exempting lots greater than 10 acres from subdivision <br />regulations <br /> <br />Citation: Tonter Investments, Inc. v. Pasquotank County, 681 S.E.2d <br />536(N.C. Ct. App. 2009) <br /> <br />NORTH CAROLINA (09/01/09)-Tonter Investments, Inc. <br />("Tonter") owned three tracts of land in the city. Tracts 1 and 2 were <br />zoned A-2, Agricultural District. Tract 3 was zoned A-1, Agricultur- <br />al. At the time Tonter purchased the tracts, the A-2 and A-l zones <br />permitted residential structures. <br />In August 2007, the county passed an prdinance (the "August <br />Amendment"), which prohibited all residential uses for A-2 zones. <br />Effectively, the August Amendment prevented Tonter from turning <br />Tracts 1 and 2 into subdivided residential developments as planned. <br />In September 2007, the county passed another ordinance (the <br />"September Amendment"). Under the September Amendment, unless <br />the county granted an exception, no structure could be built in the <br />county unless: (a) the lots contained a minimum of 25 feet of front- <br />age. on a state maintained road or a county-approved road; and (b) <br />lots were located within 1,000 feet bf a public water supply. None of <br />Tonter's tracts was located within 1,000 feet of a public water supply. <br />This meant that Tonter could not build any structures on the tracts <br />without an exception granted by the county. <br />Tonter asked the county for an exception from the August and <br />September Amendments. The county rejected Tonter's request. <br />Tonter then filed a legal action in court. Tonter challenged the <br />August and September Amendments, claiming they were invalid <br />and beYOIid the county's zoning power. Tonter pointed to North <br />Carolina statutory law. Under N.C. Gen. Stat. ~ 153A-335(a), lots <br />greater than 10 acres were exempted from local subdivision regu- <br />lations. Tonter maintained that since its proposed lots were all at <br />least 10 acres in size, the county could not impose subdivision reg- <br />ulations on them. <br />The county noted that the August and September Amendments <br />had been passed as zoning ordinances-not subdivision ordinanc- <br />es. Thus, the county maintained, the Amendments were not in- <br />valid under ~ 153A-335(a), but rather were within the county's <br />zomng power. <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />11 . <br /> <br />27 <br />