{ "id": 8353522, "name": "TOM J. KEITH, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF WHITE LAKE, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "Keith v. Town of White Lake", "decision_date": "2006-02-07", "docket_number": "No. COA05-408", "first_page": "789", "last_page": "792", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "175 N.C. App. 789" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "611 S.E.2d 194", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "case_ids": [ 12632625 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "196" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/se2d/611/0194-01" ] }, { "cite": "554 S.E.2d 634", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "638", "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted" }, { "page": "638" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "354 N.C. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 138307 ], "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "303-04", "parenthetical": "internal citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/354/0298-01" ] }, { "cite": "566 S.E.2d 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "355 N.C. 758", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 220129, 220138, 220077, 220083, 219964 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/355/0758-04", "/nc/355/0758-03", "/nc/355/0758-02", "/nc/355/0758-01", "/nc/355/0758-05" ] }, { "cite": "562 S.E.2d 18", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. App. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9129570 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "517" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/149/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "445 S.E.2d 28", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "336 N.C. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2534314, 2537066, 2536085, 2534232, 2536670 ], "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/336/0071-01", "/nc/336/0071-04", "/nc/336/0071-05", "/nc/336/0071-03", "/nc/336/0071-02" ] }, { "cite": "439 S.E.2d 199", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "201" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N.C. App. 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523385 ], "year": 1994, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "531" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/113/0528-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 N.C. App. 838", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8474232 ], "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "839" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/169/0838-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 400, "char_count": 6326, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20285603523603113 }, "sha256": "f4c8175ba9fbada108b572d6503a421bcd2867977762a3f722a79ce5137be6d0", "simhash": "1:160d5cd80657684c", "word_count": 1012 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:29:36.119960+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges McGEE and STEELMAN concur." ], "parties": [ "TOM J. KEITH, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF WHITE LAKE, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Chief Judge.\nPlaintiff, Tom J. Keith, brought this action seeking a declaratory judgment voiding defendant Town\u2019s adoption of a zoning ordinance re-zoning two tracts of land owned by plaintiff. After the Town\u2019s motion to dismiss pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 1A-1, Rule 12(b)(6) was denied, both plaintiff and defendant Town moved for summary judgment. The motion was heard upon stipulated facts which, briefly summarized, showed the following: at a meeting on 20 February 2003, the Town\u2019s Planning Board (Planning Board) recommended that plaintiff\u2019s property located within the Town\u2019s extraterritorial zoning jurisdiction be re-zoned from R-2 (Recreational Residential Zone) and B (Business) to R-l (Permanent Residential Zone) to be consistent with the Town\u2019s land use plan adopted on 12 September 2000. The Town Board of Commissioners (Board), at its 11 March 2003 meeting, set a public hearing on the matter for 1 April 2003. After proper notice, the Board conducted the public hearing on 1 April 2003 and subsequently voted unanimously to re-zone the property.\n\u25a0 Section 8-2 of the Town\u2019s Zoning Ordinance provides:\n(A) Any person or organization may petition the Board of Commissioners to amend this Ordinance. The petition, on a form approved by the Board of Commissioners, shall be filed with the Town Clerk and shall include, among the information deemed relevant by the Town Clerk:\n(1) The name, address, and phone number of the applicant;\n(2) A metes and bounds description and a scaled map of the land affected by the amendment if a change in zoning district classification is proposed; and\n(3) A description of the proposed map change or a summary of the specific objective of any proposed change in the text of this Ordinance.\n(B) Petitions for amendments shall be submitted to the Town Clerk three weeks prior to the date of the Planning Board meeting at which the petition will be reviewed.\nThe trial court granted the Town\u2019s motion for summary judgment, and plaintiff appeals, contending the re-zoning was void because the Town did not follow its own ordinance when it re-zoned his property. We affirm.\nBecause the facts have been stipulated, there are no genuine issues of material fact in dispute and the only question is whether the Town is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Town of Hertford v. Harris, 169 N.C. App. 838, 839, 611 S.E.2d 194, 196 (2005). Interpretation of the zoning ordinance is a matter of law which we review de novo. Ayers v. Bd. of Adjust. For Town of Robersonville, 113 N.C. App. 528, 531, 439 S.E.2d 199, 201, disc. review denied, 336 N.C. 71, 445 S.E.2d 28 (1994).\nThe General Assembly delegated to local governments the power to zone their territories. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-381 (2005); Summers v. City of Charlotte, 149 N.C. App. 509, 517, 562 S.E.2d 18, 24, disc. review denied, 355 N.C. 758, 566 S.E.2d 482 (2002). Section 160A-381 permits the city to delegate to a board of adjustment to \u201cdetermine and vary [the] application\u201d of the zoning regulations \u201cin accordance with general or specific rules therein contained.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-381(bl). When construing municipal zoning ordinances, we aPPly the same rules of construction used to consider statutes, in order to \u201cascertain and effectuate the intention of the municipal legislative body.\u201d Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 354 N.C. 298, 303-04, 554 S.E.2d 634, 638 (2001) (internal citation omitted). Moreover, \u201cif the words of a statute are plain and unambiguous, the court need look no further.\u201d Id. at 304, 554 S.E.2d at 638.\nThe Town\u2019s ordinances establish procedures to plan for its development and growth, including the creation of the Planning Board. As the statute permits a board of adjustment or the town council to apply the zoning regulations it adopts, the Town has appropriately delegated to the Planning Board the authority to study and recommend \u201cplans, goals and objectives relating to the growth, development and redevelopment of the Town\u2019s planning jurisdiction\u201d and to \u201c[d]evelop and recommend . . . policies, ordinances, administrative procedures and other means for carrying out\u201d these plans, as well as proposing \u201czoning text and map changes.\u201d\nPlaintiff maintains that the Town is \u201can organization\u201d which is required to petition the Board of Commissioners prior to amending the Ordinance pursuant to section 8-2. Plaintiff\u2019s reliance on section 8-2 is misplaced. Amendments to the zoning map are first governed by section 8-1, which articulates a review process by the Planning Board, and requires a public hearing, review and action by the Board of Commissioners. Here, the Planning Board proposed the zoning changes, and followed the appropriate procedures for amending the ordinance, including providing all property owners notice and conducting the public hearing. We do not interpret the ordinance as requiring the Planning Board to file a petition before initiating recommendations to the Board of Commissioners with respect to amendments to the zoning map or ordinance. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town.\nAffirmed.\nJudges McGEE and STEELMAN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Yarborough Law Firm, by Garris Neil Yarborough, for plaintiff-appellant.", "Hester, Grady & Hester, P.L.L.C., by H. Clifton Hester, for defendant-appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "TOM J. KEITH, Plaintiff v. TOWN OF WHITE LAKE, Defendant\nNo. COA05-408\n(Filed 7 February 2006)\nZoning\u2014 town ordinance \u2014 procedures for amending ordinance\nA de novo review revealed that the trial court did not err by granting summary judgment in favor of defendant town in a declaratory judgment action seeking to void the town\u2019s adoption of a zoning ordinance rezoning two.tracts of land owned by plaintiff, because: (1) the Planning Board proposed the zoning changes and followed the appropriate procedures for amending the ordinance, including providing all property owners notice and conducting the public hearing; and (2) the ordinance does not require the Planning Board to file a petition before initiating recommendations to the Board of Commissioners with respect to amendments to the zoning map or ordinance.\nAppeal by plaintiff from judgment entered 24 January 2005 by Judge Ripley E. Rand in Bladen County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 January 2006.\nThe Yarborough Law Firm, by Garris Neil Yarborough, for plaintiff-appellant.\nHester, Grady & Hester, P.L.L.C., by H. Clifton Hester, for defendant-appellee." }, "file_name": "0789-01", "first_page_order": 823, "last_page_order": 826 }