Taylor v. Bowen, 683
| Decision Date | 02 February 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 683,683 |
| Citation | 158 S.E.2d 837,272 N.C. 726 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | John Robert TAYLOR and wife, Julia E. Taylor v. H. F. BOWEN, Building Inspector for the City of Fayetteville, Monroe E.Evants, Mayor of the City of Fayetteville, Charles Holt, Harry Shaw, JohnnyJoyce and Gene Plummer, Councilmen of the City of Fayetteville, and the City ofFayetteville, amunicipal corporation. |
Williford, Person & Candy, by N. H. Person, Fayetteville, for plaintiff appellants.
Harry B. Stein, Fayetteville, for defendant appellees.
The question of law presented by this appeal is simple. Did the Community College Planning Board and the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners lose zoning jurisdiction and did the City of Fayetteville acquire that jurisdiction when the area became a part of the city by annexation? The general rule is stated by Barnhill, J. (later C.J.) in Parsons v. Wright, 223 N.C. 520, 27 S.E.2d 534: 'When a municipal corporation is established it takes control of the territory and affairs over which it is given authority to the exclusion of other governmental agencies.' See also Schloss v. Jamison, 262 N.C. 108, 136 S.E.2d 691.
City of Raleigh v. Fisher, 232 N.C. 629, 61 S.E.2d 897; G.S. §§ 160--172--160--181.2, inclusive.
Cities and towns have statutory authority to extend their boundaries to include adjacent areas. '* * * (T)he territory and its citizens and property shall be subject to all debts, laws, ordinances and regulations in force in said city or town and shall be entitled to the same privileges and benefits as other parts of said city or town. * * *' G.S. § 160--445; Duke Power Co. v. Blue Ridge Electric Membership Corp., 253 N.C. 596, 117 S.E.2d 812.
The prior zoning of the plaintiffs' property by the Cumberland County Board of Commissioners and its College Community Planning Board did not carry over and bind the zoning authorities of Fayetteville after the annexation. 'Where the land was previously zoned as a part of the municipality * * * in which it lay, the prior zoning becomes ineffective immediately upon such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Esling v. Krambeck
...Falls, 92 Idaho 595, 448 P.2d 209, 212 (1968) (county zoning ordinances cease to apply to land annexed to city); Taylor v. Bowen, 272 N.C. 726, 158 S.E.2d 837, 839 (N.C.1968) (after annexation county lost jurisdiction to zone); City of South San Francisco v. Berry, 120 Cal.App.2d 252, 254, ......
-
Park View Heights Corporation v. City of Black Jack
...Incorporated Village of Muttontown v. Friscia, 60 Misc.2d 1014, 304 N.Y.S.2d 664, 670 (N. Y.1969); Taylor v. Bowen, 272 N.C. 726, 158 S.E.2d 837, 839 (1968). It follows that the effect of the Black Jack ordinance was to "zone", not "rezone", the property in In order to properly consider the......
- Station Associates, Inc. v. Dare County, COA97-420.
- Mosley & Mosley Builders, Inc. v. Landin Ltd.