Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

In re Annexation Ordinance 301-X

Filed: December 1, 1981.

IN RE: ANNEXATION ORDINANCE 301-X; FREDERICK WILSON RANDALL AND WIFE, FRANCES M. RANDALL, CLETUS WAYNE GOODWIN AND WIFE, BOBBY JEAN GOODWIN, CHARLES E. HORNE, AND WIFE DOROTHY C. HORNE, PETITIONERS


Appeal by petitioners from the 10 September 1980 judgment of Thornburg, J., affirming the annexation of an area known as "Coulwood" by the City of Charlotte pursuant to the provisions of G.S. 160A-45 et seq.

Branch, Chief Justice.

Branch

Petitioners argue first that the annexation plan of 25 February 1980 lacks sufficient detail and specificity to comply with the requirements of G.S. 160A-47, which establishes the essential requisites of such a plan. The City argues that the only allegation in the petition which even refers to G.S. 160A-47 is paragraph 4(a) which states:

The report prepared at the direction of the Charlotte City Council setting forth plans for furnishing of police protection, fire protection, garbage collection and street maintenance

services in the proposed annexed area is in error and in violation of G.S. 160-A-47(3)(a) [sic] in that such services will not be provided as described, cannot be provided as described and will be inferior to the services now being rendered, all to the material injury of the petitioners.

The City argues that this allegation failed to raise properly for review the issue of whether the report lacked specificity and detail, an argument which petitioners raise for the first time before this Court.

Although we tend to agree with the City's position, we elect not to reach this question since the question of the degree of specificity and detail required in a plan under G.S. 160A-47(3) has been resolved. In re Annexation Ordinance 300-X, 304 N.C. 549, 284 S.E.2d 470 (1981) (decided this date). We decided adversely to petitioners' contentions in that case on the basis of a plan which was so factually similar to the plan in instant case as to be almost identical. Based upon the reasoning and authorities set forth in that case, we hold that here the City's plans were sufficiently detailed and specific to meet the requirements of G.S. 160A-47(3).

The remainder of petitioners' arguments relate to the City's alleged lack of compliance with the requirements of G.S. 160A-48(c). The statute requires in pertinent part:

(c) Part or all of the area to be annexed must be developed for urban purposes. An area developed for urban purposes is defined as any area which meets any one of the following standards:

(1) Has a total resident population equal to at least two persons for each acre of land included within its boundaries; or

(2) Has a total resident population equal to at least one person for each acre of land included within its boundaries, and is subdivided into lots and tracts such that at least sixty percent (60%) of the total acreage consists of lots and tracts five acres or less in size and such that at least sixty percent (60%) of the total number of lots and tracts are one acre or less in size . . . .

We note at the outset that the statute's requirement that the area to be annexed "must be developed for urban purposes" is satisfied if either the standard of (c)(1) or the standard of (c)(2) is met. Food Town Stores v. City of Salisbury, 300 N.C. 21, 34, 265 S.E.2d 123, 131 (1980). It is Not required that both standards be satisfied. Having so stated we turn ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.