Laserfiche WebLink
<br />July 15, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 14 <br /> <br />Decision: Affirmed. <br /> <br />On appeal, the landowners argued that the lower court had abused <br />its discretion or committed an error of law by refusing to hear their <br />second petition for review of the challenged ordinance. However, the <br />language in the code was clear; where there was no ambiguity in statu- <br />tory language, the court had to interpret the code using the plain lan- <br />guage standard. <br />Here, the landowners had the right to seek review of the ordinance <br />only "upon entering.. . sufficient surety." Despite their argument that <br />the sufficiency of the surety was never established, the appeals court <br />found that-had the landowners entered a surety-they would have <br />had the opportunity to remedy any challenged insufficiency. The court <br />noted that, generally, a party may remedy "defective" performance,but <br />where a statutory requirement was "wholly lacking," the action was <br />properly dismissed. <br />There was a dissenting opinion given in this case. The dissenting judge <br />wrote that the landowners' belief that the trial court would either approve <br />or disapprove the suggested $1,000 surety was "completely reasonable"; <br />he would have reversed the lower court's ruling, given the landowners a <br />chance to post the surety, and proceeded to hear their petition. <br /> <br />See also: Gable v. Chintala, 212 Fa. Super. 471,243 A.2d 487 (1968). <br /> <br />Special Use Permit-Under pressure from community, <br />board requires landowner to seek special use permit <br />for soccer fields <br /> <br />Landowner argues fields are permitted use in zone <br /> <br />Citation: Tones v. Johnston County, 2007 WL 1745894 (N.c. Ct. <br />App.2007) <br /> <br />NORTH CAROLINA (06/19/07)-Torres purchased approximately 10 <br />acres of land in Johnston County. He stated that he intended to use <br />the property as a site for his home, agricultural use, and to construct <br />"one or more" soccer fields for the use of an adult soccer league and <br />personal use. <br />The property was zoned "agricultural-recreational" originally, which <br />allowed: "Golf courses, parks, playgrounds, community centers, librar- <br />ies, swimming pools and similar recreational uses." Torres claimed that <br />the county planning department told him that soccer fields would be . <br />a permitted use in the zone. However, after some objectioDS from sur- <br />rounding property owners, the board told Torres that he had to seek a <br />special use permit for the fields. <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />105 <br /> <br />