Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Board of Commissioners Page Three August 24 , 1987 <br /> scope and avoiding unnecessary <br /> re Cit of Durham Annexation Ordinance r No.delays . In N.C.App. 472 , 311 S.E. 2d 8,98 (1984) . NO' 5791, 66 <br /> In summary, although Orange County is a legal <br /> "person, " the legislative pronouncement on the persons <br /> who can attack annexation ordinances would preclude the <br /> County from making such an attack unless it owned <br /> property in the annexed territory. The validity of the <br /> proceedings themself must be prosecuted by the State of <br /> North Carolina. All of this is consistent with the law <br /> in other states which tyi <br /> 1 government attack on anotpher cally ea local <br /> 5 annexation decisions only where authorized by statute. <br /> See 22221.-211z Antieau, Local Government Law, Section <br /> E 1A. 30. See <br /> also it of Orlando . <br /> e Count 309 So. 2d 16(F1a.App. 1975) , off d 327 So. 2 d <br /> 7 (1976) . <br /> o <br /> Orange County and the Towns of Chapel Hill and <br /> Carrboro have r y recognized <br /> 1 one local governmentl'slrightochallengelanotherrs on <br /> annexation decisions in North Carolina by requesting <br /> a special legislation to enable Orange County and the <br /> towns to restrict the annexatior, <br /> practices of each <br /> 0 other pursuant to contracts to do so. As you know this <br /> is the plan for the joint planning area in Orange <br /> I County. <br /> z <br /> � 2. Zanir, <br /> Q Statutes Secec or, 16phe38tatute, North Carolina General <br /> zone does not provide a or cities to <br /> those zoning decisions which are le <br /> character. There are, as will be discussed ebelow, some <br /> legislative statements concerning challenges to the <br /> t zoning and permitting decisions of cities which are not <br /> legislative. With respect to the legislative <br /> decisions, it is the general rule that only "aggrieved <br /> persons" have standing to attack the validity of the <br /> zoning decision. A person is aggrieved when he can <br /> allege and show that he will be "specially and <br /> injuriously affected in his property or other legal <br /> rights. " Marietta v. Tra ton Cor oration, 316 S.E. 2d <br /> 461 (Ga. 1984) . A person complaining about municipal <br /> action in zoning 41114r rezoning someone else ' s property <br /> has the burden of proving that he will suffer special <br /> damage by reason of such action which differs from that <br /> suffered by the general public. <br /> " [T] he <br /> not only affect a matter in which the protestaro,t hasta <br /> specific interest or property right but his interest <br /> therein must be such that he is personally and <br /> specifically affected in a way different from that <br />