Court Opinion

ID: 9850643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:00:46.99406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:40.959660
License: Public Domain

TYSON, Judge
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s opinion.
I. Issue
The issue before this Court is whether the trial court erred in concluding the City’s annexation of Non-Urban Areas 1 and 4 met the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2).
*16TT. N.C. fíen. St,at. g 160A-48(dY2)
“The primary rule of statutory construction is that the intent of the legislature controls the interpretation of a statute.” Stevenson v. City of Durham; 281 N.C. 300, 303, 188 S.E.2d 281, 283 (1972). “If the language used is clear and unambiguous, the Court does not engage in judicial construction but must apply the statute to give effect to the plain and definite meaning of the language.” Fowler v. Valencourt, 334 N.C. 345, 348, 435 S.E.2d 530, 532 (1993). N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2) (2001) clearly and unambiguously requires that at least sixty percent of the “external boundary” of a non-urban area must adjoin at least two boundaries: (1) the “municipal boundary” and (2) the “boundary of an area or areas developed for urban purposes,” in order to be annexed.
CP&L contends that the City’s purported annexation of the Long Shoals Area fails to comply with the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2) and asserts that neither Non-Urban Areas 1 nor 4 are “adjacent” or “connect” to the existing municipal boundary. The parties stipulated that neither external boundary of Non-Urban Areas 1 nor 4 touch Asheville’s existing municipal boundary at any point.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2) (2001) states:
(d) In addition to areas developed for urban purposes, a governing board may include in the area to be annexed any area which does not meet the requirements of subsection (c) if such area. . . (2) Is adjacent, on at least sixty percent (60%) of its external boundary, to any combination of municipal boundary and the boundary of an area or areas developed for urban purposes as defined in subsection (c). The purpose of this subsection is to permit municipal governing boards to extend corporate limits to include all nearby areas developed for urban purposes and where necessary to include areas which at the time of annexation are not yet developed for urban purposes but which constitute necessary land connections between the municipality and areas developed for urban purposes or between two or more areas developed for urban purposes.
(emphasis supplied). The statute clearly requires that in order for a municipality to annex non-urban land, at least sixty percent of the external boundary of the land to be annexed must be adjacent to any combination of the municipal boundary and the boundary of an “area or areas developed for urban purposes,” not either boundary standing alone. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2) (2001).
*17Requiring annexed land to adjoin the existing municipal boundary promotes sequential and orderly growth. Otherwise, without non-urban areas serving as “necessary land connections,” spot annexation of non-urban lands will be attempted that are far removed from the municipal’s boundary. Id. Allowing isolated parcels to be annexed will frustrate the extension of municipal utility lines and will cause confusion. Governmental services, such as garbage removal, post office delivery, fire, police, and other emergency personnel must attempt to determine where jurisdiction of the municipal boundary to isolated annexed parcels begins and ends while responding to addresses. See Hughes v. Town of Oak Island, 158 N.C. App. 175, 580 S.E.2d 704, 708-09 (2003). The majority’s interpretation allows municipalities to hopscotch over undeveloped non-urban areas and annex non-qualifying land areas solely for revenue enhancement. This interpretation is contrary to the plain language of the statute and case law, and does not promote orderly extension of municipal borders. The majority’s interpretation also violates the policy that land which is urban should be municipal. Non-urban land which does not touch a city’s boundary or which is not a “necessary land connection” from the municipal boundary to urban areas should remain non-municipal until that area meets the requirements of the statute.
The term “combination,” as used in the statute, is defined as “something resulting from combining two or more things.” The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition, (2000). “Combine” is defined as to “become united” or to “bring into a state of unity.” Id. The plain meaning of the statute’s language clearly requires that the non-urban area’s boundary “unite” with the municipal boundary and the boundary of the urban area or areas. All of one thing and none of another is not “any combination.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2) (2001). The majority’s interpretation constitutes “violence to the legislative language.” Three Guys Real Estate v. Harnett County, 345 N.C. 468, 473-74, 480 S.E.2d 681, 684 (1997).
The majority’s opinion states that “[o]ne workable combination exists where a non-urban area touches, on at least sixty percent of its external border, only an area or areas developed for urban purposes.” It holds that the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2) are met, where a non-urban area’s boundary does not adjoin the city limits at any point, but is adjacent on at least sixty percent of that area’s external boundary to an urban area. I disagree. The majority’s interpretation disregards the plain meaning of the term “combination” and the General Assembly’s use of the conjunctive term “and.” See Grassy *18Creek Neighborhood, Alliance, Inc. v. City of Winston-Salem, 142 N.C. App. 290, 542 S.E.2d 296 (2001) (quoting 73 Am. Jur. 2d, Statutes § 241 (1974)). If either prong alone would satisfy the statute, the General Assembly would have used the disjunctive term “or.” Id. As the majority opinion states, “the General Assembly’s choice of words in subsection (d) was not accidental.”
Annexing a non-urban area whose external boundary adjoins sixty percent of an area developed for urban purposes and zero percent of the municipal boundary violates the plain language of the statute. “Any combination,” as used in the statute, requires that at least sixty percent of the non-urban area’s external boundary must be adjacent to a “combination” of the municipal’s boundary and the urban area’s boundary. As long as this “combination” of both prongs of the statute totals sixty percent, the statute’s requirements are met.
III. Precedents
In In re Annexation Ordinance, the petitioners argued that the 15.5 acre undeveloped tract of land did not meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160-453.16(b) and (c), now N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(b) and (c). 255 N.C. 633, 642-43, 122 S.E.2d 690, 698 (1961). Our Supreme Court disagreed and held that the 15.5 acre tract met the statutory requirements. Id. The Court further held that even if the land to be annexed did not meet the requirements of those statutes, it met the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160-453.16(d), now N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2). Id. The Court interpreted the “any combination” language of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2) and stated, “[a] casual examination of the annexation map shows that more than 60% of the external boundary of the 15.5 acre tract is adjacent to the city limits and the Forest Hills Development.” Id. (emphasis supplied).
In The Little Red School House, Ltd. v. City of Greensboro, petitioners opposed annexation and argued that its subdivided land did not meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(c) and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d). 71 N.C. App. 332, 337-38, 322 S.E.2d 195, 198 (1984). This Court held that subareas M-1 and M-3 were areas developed for urban purposes and met the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(c). Id. at 338, 322 S.E.2d at 198. We further held that subarea M-2 was a non-urban area of land which did not meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(c), but did meet the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2). Id. We explained that even though subarea M-2 was not an “area developed for urban purposes,” *19it met the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2) “having 74.9% of its external boundary adjacent to the boundaries of the municipality and subareas M-l and M-3.” Id. (emphasis supplied).
In Wallace v. Town of Chapel Hill, petitioners argued that the town was without authority to annex the non-urban portion of their land for failure to meet the requirements of N.C. Gen Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2). 93 N.C. App. 422, 429, 378 S.E.2d 225, 229 (1989). This Court held that the non-urban land met the requirements of the statute and stated “[t]he Town presented evidence that the non-urban property met the criteria of (d)(2) in that the non-urban property was adjacent on at least sixty percent of its external boundary to a combination of the Town’s boundary and the boundary of the area developed for urban purposes.” Id. at 430, 378 S.E.2d at 230 (emphasis added).
This Court has also held proposed “shoestring” annexations by municipalities are invalid under North Carolina’s annexation statutes. Amick v. Town of Stallings, 95 N.C. App. 64, 71, 382 S.E.2d 221, 225-26 (1989), disc. rev. denied, 326 N.C. 587, 391 S.E.2d 40 (1990). A “shoestring” annexation is when a municipality uses a narrow corridor to connect the municipality to an outlying, noncon-tiguous area it desires to annex. Id. This Court held that the use of “shoestring” corridors to connect a municipality to outlying, noncon-tiguous territory contravenes the contiguous boundary requirements set forth in the annexation statutes. Id. (quoting Hawks v. Town of Valdese, 299 N.C. 1, 12-13, 261 S.E.2d 90, 97 (1980)). We held that “such a ‘crazy-quilt’ boundary is not consistent with ‘sound urban development’ of a municipality ‘capable of providing essential governmental services to residents within compact borders ....’” Id. (quoting Hawks, 299 N.C. at 12, 261 S.E.2d at 97).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2) was originally enacted in 1959 and has not been substantially changed since enactment. No case law supports the majority’s interpretation of this statute. All prior cases clearly show that in order for a municipality to annex non-urban land, that land must adjoin sixty percent of its external boundary to “any combination” of the municipal boundary and the boundary of land developed for urban purposes. Either boundary standing alone is insufficient. Case law also holds “shoestring” annexations, where narrow corridors of land that touch the municipal’s boundary are annexed and which are used for the sole purpose of complying with the statutory contiguity standards so that outlying, noncontiguous lands can be annexed are invalid. The majority’s interpretation of the *20statute allows municipalities to annex non-urban land without any physical, sequential, or urban nexus to the municipality. This interpretation is clearly contrary to the plain and unambiguous words used in the statute.
IV. Conclusion
The City erroneously classified both areas as adjacent non-urban areas eligible to be annexed pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2). It is stipulated that neither external boundary of Non-Urban Areas 1 nor 4 touch the City’s existing municipal boundary at any point. The plain language of the statute and all prior case law is clear that at least sixty percent of non-urban area boundaries must adjoin both the existing municipal boundary and the boundary' of an area or areas developed for urban purposes. I would hold that the trial court erred in concluding that the City’s annexation of Non-Urban Areas 1 and 4 met the requirements of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-48(d)(2). I respectfully dissent.