ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Appellate Law Blogs -> North Carolina Appellate Blog

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Appellate Law

: North Carolina Appellate Blog

COA: County Has No Statutory Authority to Impose School Impact Fee on Land Developers

By Sean E. Andrussier

ADVERTISEMENTS
Today the COA held that a county did not have statutory authority to impose school impact fees on land developers. The case is Union Land Owners Association v. County of Union.

Union County enacted the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO), which assessed the impact of residential development on schools and spelled out guidelines for determining whether the county would grant or deny building permits. The APFO also established procedures for calculating fees owed by residential land developers if their developments would overburden nearby schools.

The COA held that Union County had no authority to enact the APFO because it did not fall under any of the statutory powers given to the county by the General Assembly. The statute relating to the county's police power (N.C. Gen. Stat. Section 153A-121) did not provide an independent basis for the APFO, because the fees assessed in the APFO related to the county's power to regulate the development of real estate, and instead implicated the zoning and subdivision statutes.

The COA further explained that the APFO could also not have been enacted under the county's zoning powers delineated in N.C. Gen. Stat. Sections 153A-340 and 153A-341, which only allow a zoning ordinance to "restrict the height, number of stories and size of buildings and other structures, the percentage of lots that may be occupied, the size of yards, courts and other open spaces, the density of population, and the location and use of buildings, structures, and land for trade, industry, residence, or other purposes."

Finally, the COA held that the county's subdivision powers did not allow it to enact the APFO, noting that the subdivision statutes (Sections 153A-330 et seq.) do not authorize a county to adopt a land use regulation ordinance under which a developer may be forced to pay money.

The COA concluded that the General Assembly had not given the County the specific power to levy the fees detailed in the APFO, and the County could not shift its constitutional duty to fund public schools onto land developers through a impact fee.

Full post as published by North Carolina Appellate Blog on December 08, 2009 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0021 secs (from cache 11/02/26 21:28:13)