Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/03/1996

Home

Z~B. August 15, 1996 -- Page Subdivision-- Is proposal exempt from regulations because it has no 'streets'? Three Guys Real Estate v. Harnett County, 469 S.E.2d 578 (North Carolina') 1996 A partnership called Three Guys Real Estate owned 231.37.undeveloped acres ha Harnett County, N.C. The partnership wanted to subdivide the property into 23 lots; each lot would be more than 10 acres. The plat map didn't show any mad access to the new parcels. (The partnership plamn, ed to use a series of private driveway easements for access.) The partnership asked the county Planning Department to certify its plat map as exempt from county subdiviSion regulations. The regulations excepted from the definition of "subdivision" any "division of land into parcels greater than ten (10) acres where no Street right-of-way dedication is'inVolved.'' The regulations defined "street" as a "dedicated and accepted public right-of-way for vehicular :traffic." ACCOrding to the partnership, it was exempt because it didn't plan to use any public streets. ~ The county's subdivision administrator, Planning Board and 'Bbard of Com- missioners all denied the exemption becaUse the map didn't show any road ac- -CeSS~ The partnership asked a court to declare the plat map exempt, and to order ,the subdivision 'administrator'to certify the' map a such. '- :- After filing the laWsuit, . the partnership gave the county a revised plat map ' that showed the planned driveway easements. Afler trial, the com:t held that the property was not exempt from the subdivi- sion regulations. The court found the private easements the partnership proposed Would wind up being open for public use, and would not be adequate for emer- gency vehicles.'Therefore, without better access roads, the proposal did not com- ply with the regulations' goal of promoting public health, safety and welfare. The partnership appealed. --. DECISION: Affirmed, but modified. The trial court properly found the plan subject tO the subdivision regulations,. but for the wrong reasons. The judgment was affirmed, but modified. The trial court was .wrong in its reasons for finding the proposal subject to the subdivision regulations. No evidence supported its finding that the partnership's planned easements really would have been open to the public. Even though the partnership's map did not meet the technical definition of a "subdivision," the county did not have to approve the map. To achieve the protection the subdivision regulations intended, they had to be read so that the partnership's proposal was subject to them. Otherwise, uses that en- dangered public health, safety and welfare would be allowed. The trial court's findings about the easements' inadequacy for emergency vehicles were sup- ported by evidence. Woodhouse v. Board of Commissioners, 26] S.E. 2d 882 (1980). Sugarman v. Lewis, 488 A.2d 709 (J985).