Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/1997

Home

Z.B. May 10, 1997 - Page 7 "Iy In 1993, Three Guys submitted to the Harnett County Planning Department a map that showed the property divided into 23 lots, each of which exceeded 10 acres in size. The map did not indicate any street right-of-way or other access to the subdivision lots. Three Guys asked the planning department to certify the map as exempt from the county's subdivision regulations. According to the regulations, a map's plan had to meet certain conditions before it could be presented for recordation. How- ever, these conditions would not apply if the map's plan fell under an exemption. Three Guys pointed to a regulation that exempted from subdivision regulations any "division of land into parcels greater than 10 acres if no street right-of-way dedication [was] involved." The map contained a surveyor's certificate indicating it met the exemption requirement. Mter the map was submitted, Harnett County's subdivision administrator said it was not exempt and had to comply with the subdivision regulations. Three Guys sued the county, asking the court to declare its plan'exempt and order the subdivision administrator to certify it as such. Mter filing the suit, Three Guys submitted a revised map, which showed a number of private driveway easements providing access to the lots. The county argued the subdivision regulations included a general statement empowering counties to protect the health and welfare of the community. It said that if the Three Guys' plan were approved under the exception, it would only undermine the intent of the regulations. The court, while finding the driveway easements would provide public access to the lots, concluded the setup would be inadequate for public safety personnel such as police and firefighters. Because the plan would compromise public safety needs, the court said, the map was not exempt from the subdivision regulations. Three Guys appealed. The appeals court said the lower court was wrong to find the driveway-easement plan allowed for any public access at all. However, the appeals court agreed with the lower court's public-safety concems.ltpointed out that the legislation gave counties the power to regulate subdivisions to promote the health and welfare of the community. As a result, the appeals court said, the map was not exempt, and the county was not required to approve that map for recordation. Three Guys appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court for further proceedings. The plan fell under the exemption and was not subject to the subdivision regulations. The regulations' statement about promoting public safety was vague, and expressed only a general intent. By contrast, the exemption was clear and explicit. The rule exempted any division of land with lots larger than 10 acres "if no street right-of-way dedication [was] involved." The map submitted by Three Guys clearly met all the exemption's conditions. Because the exemption was far more specific than this general statement of ..