Laserfiche WebLink
<br />October 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 20 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />The trial court agreed with the county. <br />Tonter appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br />( -) <br /> <br />The Court of Appeals of North Carolina also agreed with the <br />county. It held that ~ 153A-335(a), which prohibited the county from <br />adopting subdivision ordinances applicable to lots greater than 10 <br />acres in size, did not preclude the. county from amending its zoning <br />ordinance with the August and September Amendments. The Au- <br />gust and September Amendments were valid even though they effec- <br />tivelyprecluded Tonter from building residences on land that Tonter <br />planned to subdivide into lots that would be at least 10 acres. Lots <br />greater than 10 acres in size were still subject to the county's zon- <br />ing power. Likewise, here, the August and September Amendments <br />neither prohibited: division into lots greater than 10 acres; nor de- <br />velopers from building on lots. Rather, the September Amendment <br />required adequate road and water service to lots before structures <br />could be built. Such requirements were within the county's zoning <br />power because they had a "strong relationship to public safety and <br />health." Similarly, the court found there was a "clear relationship" <br />between the August Amendment's prevention of residences in the A-2 <br />zone and public health and safety. The county had determined that it (~) <br />would be unable to provide essential public services to new residenc- <br />es in the A-2 zone and there were safety concerns related to aerial <br />pesticide spraying in that zone. <br /> <br />See also: Graham v. City of Raleigh, 55 N.c. App. 107, 284 S.E.2d <br />742 (1981). <br /> <br /> <br />\,-) <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />28 <br />