Letendre v. Currituck Cnty.
Decision Date | 15 May 2018 |
Docket Number | No. COA17-1108,COA17-1108 |
Citation | 259 N.C.App. 512,817 S.E.2d 73 |
Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Elizabeth E. LETENDRE, Plaintiff, v. CURRITUCK COUNTY, North Carolina, Defendant. |
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Raleigh, by Jonathan E. Hall, Michael J. Crook, and Jamie Schwedler, for plaintiff-appellee.
Currituck County Attorney Donald I. McRee, Jr., for Defendant-appellant.
This case arises from this Court's prior opinion issued on 21 June 2016 in Long v. Currituck County , ––– N.C. App. ––––, 787 S.E.2d 835 (2016), which held that under Currituck County's Unified Development Ordinance § 10.51, Plaintiff's proposed "project does not fit within the plain language of the definition of Single Family Dwelling, and thus is not appropriate in the SF District." Id. at ––––, 787 S.E.2d at 841. While Long was pending before this Court, Plaintiff was warned of the possible consequences of proceeding with construction of the project if the trial court's order in that case was reversed on appeal, but she decided to build the project anyway. After Defendant took action to comply with this Court's ruling in Long , issued on 21 June 2016, Plaintiff sought and obtained a preliminary injunction issued on 9 June 2017 which required Defendant to "deem the home approved by the County building permit issued in March 2015 to be a single-family detached dwelling for purposes of the Currituck County Unified Development Ordinance" and to allow her to complete construction and occupancy of the project. Defendant appealed the preliminary injunction. Although Plaintiff's complaint includes many claims in her attempt to prevent Defendant from enforcing the Unified Development Ordinance in accordance with this Court's opinion in Long , ––– N.C. App. ––––, 787 S.E.2d 835, Plaintiff has not demonstrated that she is likely to prevail on any of her claims, and therefore the preliminary injunction must be reversed.
On 27 March 2017, Plaintiff filed this action seeking a declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, monetary damages, and attorney fees. On 9 June 2017, the trial court entered a preliminary injunction ordering Defendant to "deem the home approved by the County Building permit issued in March 2015 to be a single-family detached dwelling for purposes of the Currituck County Unified Development Ordinance;" to rescind the Stop Work Order issued in September 2016 and the Notice of Violation issued in February 2017; and to permit Plaintiff to complete construction of her project and then allow occupancy.
Id. at ––––, 787 S.E.2d at 836 (quotation marks omitted). In other words, the preliminary injunction on appeal ordered Defendant to "deem" Plaintiff's project which was under construction during the pendency of the appeal of Long "to be a single-family detached dwelling" under the Currituck County UDO, although this Court held in Long that her house is not a single-family detached dwelling as defined by the Currituck County UDO. See id. , ––– N.C. App. ––––, 787 S.E.2d 835.
Plaintiff described her plan to build the house which is the subject of this case, and was the subject of Long , in her complaint as follows:
In November of 2013, the Currituck County Planning Director, Mr. Ben E. Woody, issued a Letter of Determination "confirming that the Home as proposed in the Plans would be a single-family detached dwelling and would be permitted on the Lot pursuant to the Currituck County UDO."
Besides approval by the Currituck County BOA, Plaintiff's house required a permit from the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources ("DENR") allowing "[m]ajor [d]evelopment in an [a]rea of [e]nvironmental [...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cybernet, LLC v. David
...context of "a city ordinance setting forth land-use regulations on property designated a flood hazard area")); Letendre v. Currituck Cty., — N.C. App. —, 817 S.E.2d 73, 78 (2018) (considering a takings claim in the context of a county's Unified Development Ordinance); Robinson v. N.C. Dep't......
- N.C. Dep't of Transp. v. Laxmi Hotels of Spring Lake, Inc.
-
Lakins v. W. N.C. Conference of the United Methodist Church
...a [party]’s contention that a statute is incapable of constitutional application in any context." LeTendre v. Currituck Cty. , 259 N.C. App. 512, 534, 817 S.E.2d 73, 89 (2018), appeal dismissed, supersedeas and disc. review denied , 372 N.C. 54, 822 S.E.2d 641 (2019). ¶ 24 On appeal, Defend......
-
Currituck Cnty. v. Letendre
...in February 2017; and to permit Plaintiff to complete construction of her project and then allow occupancy." Letendre v. Currituck Cty., 817 S.E.2d 73, 78 (N.C. Ct. App. 2018). The superior court also denied the Longs' motion to intervene. The County appealed the preliminary injunction. On ......