|
,53 A-?41 �R?. 12. RO. S AND 3'iDGES ''03 a-2'_
<br /> No cause of action founded u;orl tie invalidity of a proceecinly
<br /> taken in Closing a public road'or an easement may be asser 2d s
<br /> except in an action or proceed;-, begun within 30 days after the
<br /> da': the order is adopted.
<br /> I;pon the closina of a public road or an easement pursuant to this
<br /> Section, all right, title, and interest in the rlgnt-of-way is vested in
<br /> t..ose persons owning lots or parcels of land adjacent to the road or
<br /> easement, and the title of each adjoining landowner, for -he width
<br /> of his abutting' land, extends to the center line of the public road or
<br /> easement. However, the right, title or ir._erest vested in an adjoin-
<br /> -ing n agra
<br /> landower by this parph remains subject to any public
<br /> utility use or facility located or-, over, or under the road or ease-
<br /> ment immediately before its closing, until the lardow-er or anv
<br /> successor thereto pays to the utility involved the reasonable cost of
<br /> removing and relocating the fac;iity. (1949, c. 1208, ss. 1-3; 1907, c.
<br /> 60, s. 11; 1960, cc. 666, 801; 1971, c. 096; 1973, c. 507, s. 0; 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-
<br /> Legal Periodicals. - For note dis- tinued, see 45 N.C.L. Rev. 564 (1967).
<br /> cussing the disposition of property
<br /> _Y
<br /> a,
<br /> CASE NOTES
<br /> Editor's Note. - Some of the cases S.E.2d 309, cert. denied, 282 YC. 151, !1
<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 3 153A-239,it is clear that a
<br /> -w an interest in the hearing on the re- county does not have the power to close
<br /> quest to close the street. In re City of a way of passage which has not been
<br /> Washington, 15 N.C. App. 505, 190 dedicated to the public or in which the
<br /> K S.E.2d 309, cert. denied, 292 N.C. 151, Public has not acquired ri3hts 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 /> lice. - The true legislative intent is (1988)'
<br /> t 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-
<br /> prive a property owner of reason-
<br /> ' quired must be given. Such an intent if able ingress or egress. Watford v.
<br /> fair and just,because it affords all inter-
<br /> fair North Carolina Stage Hwy.Comm'n,263 ,.{
<br /> ;`.. N.C. 677, 140 S.E.2d 376, cert. denied, I
<br /> ested parties an opportunity to be heard. 382 U.S. 822, 86 S. Ct. 50, 15 L. Ed. 2d 1
<br /> In re City of Washington, 15 N.C. App. 67 (1965)• p
<br /> y 505, 190 S.E.2d 309, cert. denied, 282 An individual may restrain the
<br /> N.C. 151, 191 S.E.2d 601 (1972). ` 8 obstruction of a public
<br /> Notice to Adjoining Property way,of whatever origin,
<br /> 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 f
<br /> requires notice by registered mail to the he may recover such special damages as
<br /> owners of property adjoining the street 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 `i,C. 677, 140
<br /> *-1 the statute are clear and unequivocal. S.E.2d 376, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 822,
<br /> air= 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 /> 117
<br /> i
<br /> ,
<br />
|