Administrative Decisions by the Planning and Zoning Staff: Who is in the Loop?

UPDATE September 2013:  In the summer of 2013 the General Assembly enacted legislation that will enable an owner whose property is subject to a decision or interpretation by the zoning administrator or subdivision ordinance administrator to post a sign on the property that a “zoning decision” or “subdivision decision” has been made by the local government.  The effect of the sign is to give constructive notice to third parties that a decision or interpretation has been made concerning the property upon which the sign is posted. See Sec. 1 of S. L. 2013 – 126, amending G.S. 160A-388(b1)(4).

An often-overlooked part of zoning and land subdivision control is the role of staff in interpreting regulations, making administrative decisions, issuing orders and permits, and granting development approvals. Crucial conversations and negotiations routinely occur among staff members and permit applicants and their representatives, sometimes resulting in revisions of plans. This administrative process, however, is often not designed to encourage participation by third parties such as neighboring property owners and nonprofit organizations. Two Court of Appeals decisions handed down yesterday demonstrate just how many obstacles these groups can face. Read more »

This Deed is Subject to … Huh?

Once upon a time, deeds had property descriptions that actually described the property being conveyed.  They would give distances and directions that could be sketched into recognizable geometries, and they would tell about neighbors’ recorded rights that affected the property, such as someone’s logging road or a shared well. Today, North Carolina deeds, especially for residential property, typically do not give nearly as complete a picture.  They are more likely to refer to a different document—a plan—for the boundaries, and instead of specifically mentioning others’ rights, the deed more likely just says something like: “subject to easements, covenants, and restrictions of record.”  While these features have become common and apparently acceptable practices within the conveyancing community, they present significant dangers for those who rely solely on the deed and do not further investigate the records for others’ rights. Read more »

Jet Planes and Carnival Games: Who Gets to Tax Them?

In the last few months of 2009, the North Carolina Court of Appeals issued two interesting opinions on property tax situs.  A fancy word for “location,” situs controls whether or not property is subject to tax in a particular jurisdiction.  The two appellate decisions are worth noting both for the law and for the property involved: one case concerned a $35 million jet airplane, the other $25 million worth of carnival rides and games.  Taken together, the two cases demonstrate  that property can have tax situs here in North Carolina even if it spends most of the year—and maybe even all of the year—in other states.  How can that be? Read more »

The ABCs of ABC Boards

A $12,000 dinner for Mecklenburg ABC employees paid for by a liquor broker.  A $280,000 salary for an ABC administrator in New Hanover County ― finally disclosed after the ABC board first refused to release public information about salaries.  A dispute over the location of an ABC store in Currituck County.  Each of these issues has generated considerable local controversy ― and statewide interest ― in recent weeks, and each has prompted the affected boards of county commissioners to think about their role in the oversight of local alcoholic beverage control systems.  This blog reviews the basics of the relationship between county commissioners and city councils and their local ABC boards. Read more »

Levying the Property Tax: Earmarking Tax Revenue for Specific Purposes

Local government officials often ask me two questions related to their property tax authority—(1) whether a unit may impose property taxes only for specific, designated purposes; and (2) whether a unit may impose property taxes only on specific properties within their jurisdictions. The answer to the first question is “yes.” The answer to the second question is either “yes, but only under limited circumstances,” or “no, except under limited circumstances” (depending on whether you subscribe to a glass half full or half empty philosophy). I explain the answer to the first question below. You will have to await my next post for an analysis of the second. Read more »

Wireless Telecommunications Facilities: Can North Carolina Communities Avoid Shot-Clock Violations?

UPDATE September 2013:  Click here for an update on federal law as of March 2013.  New North Carolina legislation adopted during the summer of 2013 makes conforming changes to North Carolina law with respect to recent federal legislation and Federal Communications Commission rulings and adds features that are peculiar to this state.  See S.L. 2013 – 185.

About two months ago the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a declaratory ruling concerning local government review of siting decisions for wireless telecommunication facilities. Among other things, the agency used its rule-making authority to set express time limits within which local governments must act on facilities siting applications (resulting in the analogy of the wireless industry’s trade association to a basketball game “shot clock” for zoning authorities). North Carolina local governments may breathe somewhat easier because the November 18, 2009, ruling is in most instances, but not all instances, less demanding than the North Carolina General Statutes are in comparable situations. It is unlikely that North Carolina local governments complying with state law will be guilty of a “shot-clock” violation under federal law. Here’s why. Read more »

Durham County v. IBM Credit Corp: The Saga Continues

Local tax officials should add to their reading lists the latest chapter in what may be the state’s longest-running property tax saga.  Last month the N.C. Court of Appeals ruled in favor of IBM Credit Corporation in its dispute with Durham County over the 2001 tax value of 40,000+ computers and related items that IBM leased to its customers in Durham County.   Nearly ten years after the property was listed for taxation, the parties are still about $50 million apart in their respective valuations.  The ruling could cost Durham County close to $5 million in tax revenue and change the appraisal process for business personal property across the state.  Read more »