|
j�;ia�� i ; ,!
<br /> ti = - - - =n. .- a...t. � 1 li
<br /> 1: i,
<br /> 1153A-344 1993 CUMULATIVE SUPPLEMENT §153A-344 I §153A-344.1 COUNTIES 1153A-353 i . ! I ',
<br /> } t
<br /> pilule, adopts an ordinance placing it Franklin, 1993,c. 358,a 15,as to(Jr • I • § 153A-344.1. Vesting rights. -�.,.�Ior 1,,, +•
<br /> into effect at such earlier dale Adoption ange. In addition, by virtue of Scanlon •
<br /> of sod,ordinance to subject to the preen- Laws 1993,c 4611,a 3.the local uualdi- If r� •�)' 't
<br /> 1 1
<br /> dins)tequireinents of I.S 1611A 36.1 ur callous for Alexander, Cabarrus, CASE NOTES
<br /> 1:S I53A-323,as appiuprirte,but not Catawba, Iredell, Jubnrtun, Martin. t .. t!
<br /> io any procedural requirement of the Randolph,Wake,and Yadkin should be . - 1!
<br /> riming ordinance for adoption of amend- stricken from the wain volume.Section Cited in Nrllo L.Tees Co.v Orange
<br /> B p County, 810 F Supp. 679 (M.D.N C. 0';/"_'�
<br /> egrets to the zoning ordinance.'fie urdi- 31b1 of c 469 provides that nothing in 19921
<br /> ,
<br /> nonce may provide for different dales of the section affects any ordinance ;' I'; ,
<br /> applicability based um the stage of the adopted under the authority of any act jl+ , d� ry
<br /> g claasifuation action on the Wirt- repealed by a 3(a)prior to the effective § 153A-348. Statute of limitations. ' `'�'' 'i,i
<br /> live Jute. dale of c. 469.
<br /> '"I he ordinance prevails over some or Effect of Amendments. - , l
<br /> all ofChaplc.455,Session Law*of 1987, The 1993 amendment,effective Janu- CASE NOTES 'i I
<br /> ar amended by Chapter 271, Session ary 1,1994,added the subsection dal dal- '1, 11 •i lI
<br /> I awe of 1993,if the ordinance so pro- ignation; in subsection Ia) substituted � j
<br /> •
<br /> p K Stated in Nell°L.Tees Co.v Orange
<br /> vides" "abstracts"for"abstracts;provided that • • '
<br /> F Supp. 679 (M.U.N.C.
<br /> I • ,! t�� ,
<br /> Bissau Laws 1993,c 469,a.31a1,rf- this sentence does nut apply in the case 1992 County, 810 -I' "
<br /> fcalive January I,1994,repeals various of a total rezoning of all property within '1:.I, {,
<br /> a te,including the following local midi- the boundaries of a county unless the if; r
<br /> Citations to this section. Brewton Laws rezoning involves zoning of parcels of ij''' .
<br /> 1993,c 101,as to Wilkes 1993,c 139, land to less intense uses or down zoning' Part 4. Building Inspection. q
<br /> as to Stokes, 1993, C. 156, as to in which care notification to owners of r 4 Watau a; 1993,c 267,ar to Davidson thecae arcels shall be made b mail nn amt Ili ie, 19'93,c 271,auto Rucking- accordance with this section",e nd added § 153A-353. Joint inspection department; other ar- , , ��
<br /> rangements. t ' .€ aj r . '
<br /> ham, 1993. c 296, as to Nash and subsection Ibl. I !'
<br /> li ,ir'i A county may enter into and carry out contracts with one or more
<br /> CASE NOTES other counties or cities under which the parties agree to create and `,
<br /> support a joint inspection department for enforcing those State and Lk {�
<br /> Cited III Fnzzclle v llarnstt County, County, 810 F Supp 679 IM U.N C. local laws and local ordinances and regulations specified in the I H' 'j
<br /> 1(16 N 1: App 234, 416 8 E'2.l 421 19921 _ agreement. The governing bodies of the contracting units may "-j , 1,
<br /> 119921, Nellu 1.. 'seer Cu v Orange I ' oft make any necessary appropriations for this purpose.
<br /> In lieu of a joint inspection department,a county may designate i', , 1' i'i ,.
<br /> an inspector from another county or from a city to serve as a mem-
<br /> 153A-344. Planning agency; zoning plan; certifi- bee of the county inspection department, with the approval of the i i1 !
<br /> cation to board of commissioners; governing body of the other county or city,or may contract with an 1 t
<br /> amendments. Individual who is not a city or county employee but who holds one of f ' '
<br /> the applicable certificates as provided in G.S. 153A-351 1 or G.S. 1 `'1
<br /> 160A-411 1. The inspector, if designated from another county or 'l
<br /> CASE NOTES city under this section,while exercising the duties of the position,is
<br /> a county employee.The county shall have the same potential liabil- ; i'(i
<br /> Amendment Held Not Applicable chiding operation of a quarry on such , ity,if any,for inspections conducted by an individual who is not an , .!•to Defendants.--Where the wtaronlra- property would not apply to defendants. employee of the county as it does for an individual who is an em- - i• 1 I '
<br /> did ed forecast of evidence established as Cardwell v Smith. 106 N C. App 187, I.
<br /> ployee of the county The individual with whom the county con- a I i !
<br /> a matter of law that dele ndants made 415 S E 2d 770,ctrl denied,332 N C. tracts shall have errors and omissions and other insurance coverage ., i, ,
<br /> substantial expenditures our the opera- 140, 419 SE'2J 569 1199'21 • • acceptable to the county. (1937, c. 57, 1941, c. 105; 1947, c. 719; '1, 1:1
<br /> non of a quarry uu the properly in gins- Cited in Friz.elle v Ilurnetl County, 1951,c.651, 1959,c.940; 1963,c.639; 1965,c.371;1967,c.495,B.
<br /> lieu in good faith and in reliance upon 106 N C App 234, 416 S E 2 421 - 1. 1969,c.918•c. 1010,s.4'C. 1064,ga. 1,5-c. 1066,s. 1. 1973,c. i..
<br /> the special use permit previously 119921, Neill) I. 'Peer Co v Orange 822, s. 1; 1993, c. 232, s. 1.) ■
<br /> granted by the Zoning hoard, a later Cuunly, 810 F Supp 679 IM U N C.
<br /> •
<br /> amendment by the Zoning Uorril pie- 19921
<br /> Effect of Amendments.-The 1993
<br /> amendment,effective June 28,1993,re- I' •
<br /> wrote the second paragraph. .�Pf
<br /> 4 a,'
<br /> L
<br /> IV
<br /> 100 • • 101 (0
<br /> 1
<br /> i s .
<br />
|