Court Opinion

ID: 9848266
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:15:34.289545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:10.091889
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice Bobbitt
dissenting.
Upon compliance with standards prescribed by G.S. 160-453.16, the General Assembly has authorized the governing body (city council) to determine what area is to be annexed. This area may lie wholly or in part to the north, or to the'south, or to the east, or to the west, of the existing city limits. The court has no authority to substitute its discretion for that of the municipal governing body. Annexation of the area to be annexed may be completed when provision is made for the extension of municipal services to such area. G.S. 160-453.17.
An annexation proceeding relates to land within a déscribed area, without regard to the personal circumstances of the owner of any particular parcel or tract wholly or partly within its boundaries. In the present case, I find no valid objection to the annexation proceedings. Since each of the study areas is in full compliance, it follows that the composite of these areas, is in full, compliance.
*458The extension of the city limits to include undeveloped land is to enable the municipality to make plans for the orderly development of such areas. If the area to be annexed when considered as a whole meets the statutory requirements, the owner of an undeveloped tract is not entitled to have it excluded from the annexation because when considered alone it does not meet the statutory requirements. In re Annexation Ordinance, 255 N.C. 633, 642-43, 122 S.E. 2d 690, 698 (1961).
The result of the Court’s decision is to validate the annexation in all respects except as to property of appellant. The annexation boundary would be McAlpine Creek until appellant’s property is reached. Thence it would diverge from McAlpine Creek and follow the lines of appellant’s property until it reaches a new location on McAlpine Creek. Thence it would proceed with the creek. The city council has not approved an annexation area having such boundaries.
Justice Higgins joins in this dissenting opinion.