10.
<br /> §153A-241 ART. 12. ROADS AND BRIDGES §153A-241
<br /> No cause of action founded upon the invalidity of a proceeding
<br /> taken in closing a public road or an easement may be asserted
<br /> except in an action or proceeding begun within 30 days after the
<br /> day the order is adopted.
<br /> Upon the closing of a public road or an easement pursuant to this
<br /> section, all right, title, and interest in the right-of-way is vested in
<br /> those persons owning lots or parcels of land adjacent to the road or
<br /> easement, and the title of each adjoining landowner, for the width
<br /> of his abutting land, extends to the center line of the public road or
<br /> easement. However, the right, title or interest vested in an adjoin-
<br /> ing landowner by this paragraph remains subject to any public
<br /> utility use or facility located on, over, or under the road or ease-
<br /> ment immediately before its closing, until the landowner or any
<br /> successor thereto pays to the utility involved the reasonable cost of
<br /> removing and relocating the facility. (1949, c. 1208, ss. 1-3; 1957, c.
<br /> 65, s. 11; 1965, cc. 665, 801; 1971, c. 595; 1973, c. 507, s. 5; c. 822, s.
<br /> 1; 1977, c. 464, s. 34.)
<br /> Local Modification. - Guilford: within the boundaries of a dedicated
<br /> 1979, c. 282; 1981, c. 59. street when use of the street is discon- a
<br /> Legal Periodicals. - For note dis- tinued, see 45 N.C.L. Rev. 564 (1967).
<br /> cussing the disposition of property
<br /> ,t!
<br /> CASE NOTES
<br /> Y• Editor's Note. - Some of the cases S.E.2d 309, cert. denied, 282 N.C. 151,
<br /> cited below were decided under corre- 191 S.E.2d 601 (1972).
<br /> sponding sections of former law. Restrictions on County's Power to
<br /> Owners of property on a street Close a Way of Passage.-From this '(
<br /> which is to be partially closed have section and§ 153A-239,it is clear that a
<br /> an interest in the hearing on the re- county does not have the power to close I!
<br /> quest to close the street. In re City of a way of passage which has not been
<br /> It
<br /> Washington, 15 N.C. App. 505, 190 dedicated to the public or in which the
<br /> S.E.2d 309, cent. denied, 282 N.C. 151, public has not acquired rights by pre-
<br /> :. 191 S.E.2d 601 (1972). scription. In re Easement of Right of
<br /> Legislative Intent as to Giving No- Way,90 N.C. App. 303, 368 S.E.2d 639
<br /> .. (1988).
<br /> tice. - The true legislative intent is i;
<br /> that if a municipality wishes to close a The closing of a street must not de-
<br /> street, or a part thereof, the notices re- Prive a property owner of reason-
<br /> quired must be given. Such an intent if able ingress or egress. Wofford v.
<br /> v fair and just,because it affords all inter-
<br /> N.C. Carolina State Hwy.Comm'n,263
<br /> ' N.C. 677, 140 S.E.2d 376, cert. denied,
<br /> ks ested parties an opportunity to be heard. 382 U.S. 822,86 S. Ct. 50, 15 L. Ed. 2d
<br /> In re City of Washington, 15 N.C. App. 67 (1965).
<br /> 505, 190 S.E.2d 309, cert. denied, 282 An individual may restrain the
<br /> N.C. 151, 191 S.E.2d 601 (1972). wrongful obstruction of a public !�
<br /> t Notice to Adjoining Property way,of whatever origin,if he will suffer
<br /> Owners Not to Be Limited to Those injury thereby as distinct from the in- !
<br /> with Special.Interest - The statute convenience to the public generally,and i 4
<br /> requires notice by registered mail to the he may recover such special damages as
<br /> •V owners of property adjoining the street
<br /> he has sustained by reason of the ob- ,
<br /> to be closed who did not join in the re- struction. Wofford v. North Carolina
<br /> quest for closing the street.The words of State Hwy. Comm'n, 263 N.C. 677, 140
<br /> the statute are clear and unequivocal. S.E.2d 376, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 822,
<br /> £�. There is nothing-to indicate that only 86 S. Ct. 50, 15 L. Ed. 2d 67 (1965).
<br /> those with a "special interest" must be Applied in Whitehead Community
<br /> notified by registered mail.In re City of Club v. Hoppers,43-N.C. App. 671, 260
<br /> Washington, 15 N.C. App. 505, 190 S.E.2d 94 (1979).
<br /> i
<br /> 117
<br />
|