Sometimes it's extremely difficult to maintain one's composure when this is brought up as a reason for taking certain positions regarding regs. 😐
They tried to do that in NC pertaining to a Subdivision exempt from subdivision regulations. It went to court and the planners lost.
> They tried to do that in NC pertaining to a Subdivision exempt from subdivision regulations. It went to court and the planners lost.
The Case Mr. Robinson mentions is this one.
North Carolina Supreme Court
Three Guys Real Estate v. Harnett County, 345 N.C. 468, 480 S.E.2d 681, (1997)
Subdivision
The owner of a 231.37 acre parcel proposed to divide the land into twenty-three lots and proposed no street rights-of-way or other access to the lots. A revised plat filed after suit was filed showing access by a series of private driveway easements. The owner contended the subdivision was exempt from county regulation under G.S. 153A-335(2) in that each proposed lot was greater than ten acres. The county refused to approve plat filing, contending the subdivision did not qualify for exemption. The trial court agreed, finding the private driveways would be open for public use and the county could regulate the division under its subdivision authority. The court of appeals reversed the findings that the private easements constituted a street right of way, but held that county approval could be withheld if the development posed a danger to the public health, safety, and welfare. The supreme court reversed. The court concluded the statutory exemption of G.S. 153A-335(2) is clear and unambiguous: If all lots created by a subdivision exceed ten acres and there is no public right of way dedication involved, the subdivision is exempt from any and all county subdivision regulation.
Since all the planners I ever heard discuss this case hated the outcome, they all have expressed the idea that they would do anything they wanted to do unless and until the Supreme Court ruled on a case from their own county.
Sad but true.
Larry P
I wonder how much money the developer spent appealing his case twice, all the way to the state supreme court, verse what it would have cost him to follow the county regs. for subdivision platting ... I sincerely hope he was reimbursed attorney fees as part of his victory.
Many planning departments count on that: it will cost much more to go to court than to comply with their extortion.
> I wonder how much money the developer spent appealing his case twice, all the way to the state supreme court, verse what it would have cost him to follow the county regs. for subdivision platting ... I sincerely hope he was reimbursed attorney fees as part of his victory.
Mr. Shepp has it exactly right. The planners know that few people will be willing to fight for their rights. So they usually get away with doing pretty much anything they want any way they want.
Many times when I have pointed out that they are breaking the law they just claim that they have immunity and that they can do anything they want any way they want and no body can do anything about it. (Can you tell that most of the planners I have known are not on my list of favorite people?)
Larry P
I had a similar problem with a local government here. We finally got them to change their mind when we threatened to subdivide by deed, without the benefit of a Plat.
> I had a similar problem with a local government here. We finally got them to change their mind when we threatened to subdivide by deed, without the benefit of a Plat.
Californians, don't try this at home:-P
Don
That is precisely how it would be handled here. You own it. Do with it what you want until some specific line is crossed. We make sure there are very few of those "specific lines" that one might cross. Construction in a flood plain is one of the very few "specific lines" we recognize.