news-record.com

NEWS

Judge overturns McLeansville annexations

Tuesday, February 9, 2010
(Updated 1:07 pm)

GREENSBORO — Three McLeansville subdivisions are no longer part of the city, after a judge declared their 2009 annexation void.

Four McLeansville residents sued Greensboro last year to stop the planned July 1 annexation. Greensboro added the land, but late last week, Judge Edwin Wilson sided with residents, who argued the city could not hold them to annexation agreements made with the subdivision developers.

Wilson’s ruling means that the three subdivisions — including 151 acres and about 285 homes — will go back to being part of Guilford County.

“It’s a very happy day for everybody,” said Ron Powell, one of the residents who brought the lawsuit.

Greensboro leaders are still trying to work out when and how to withdraw city services such as trash pickup.

Assistant City Manager Denise Turner said Greensboro has spent about $450,000 providing items such as new street signs and trash cans and public safety services for the subdivisions — a figure that does not include the cost to extend water and sewer lines.

It will be up to the City Council to decide whether the city will appeal the judge’s decision.

Between 1997 and 2000, developers of the Whitehurst Village, Hartwood Village and Laurel Park subdivisions — just off Interstate 85 in the area of Mount Hope Church Road — asked for city water and sewer.

In exchange for the infrastructure, developers petitioned for the city to annex the subdivisions.

When the city got around to annexing the land years later, some people who bought those homes said they did not know their neighborhoods were going to become part of Greensboro.

The council approved the annexation in April 2009, amid protests from homeowners.

The McLeansville residents have argued that the city would not be able to provide them with all the amenities other city residents enjoy, such as parks and libraries.

Although there is a fire station in the area and the city police department covers the neighborhood, bus service routes do not extend to that part of McLeansville.

The subdivisions, an island of homes surrounded by open land, are connected to the city by little more than a strip of highway.

“It would be something different … if they had really provided the amenities we have in other areas,” Powell said.

In Guilford County Superior Court, the residents argued that the city could not hold them to the utility agreements and annexation petitions signed by the developers years ago.

“We showed the court they (the agreements) didn’t run with the land and the people who bought the land were not bound by them,” the residents’ attorney, James Eldridge, said.

Late last week, the judge sided with the residents, making the McLeansville annexation null and void. Wilson also ordered the city to pay the plaintiffs’ legal costs.

That means the city extended — and now must rescind — services to an area that is not part of its jurisdiction.

It also means that the homes in the area are likely to go back to paying higher, out-of-the-city water rates, and the city may have to refund property taxes that homeowners have paid.

Those are some of the issues city staff members are trying to resolve, Turner said.

She said the tax collector’s office is still tallying how much property tax revenue the city has collected from those homeowners.

The court ruling does not affect any annexation other than the one in McLeansville. But it may make Greensboro reconsider its practice of waiting, in some cases for years, to bring petitioned annexations into the city.

That’s a policy issue the City Council will have to consider, city staff said.

Contact Amanda Lehmert at 373-7075 or amanda.lehmert@news-record.com

 

Accompanying Photos

Tim Rickard
Additional Photos

Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

obiwon

February 8, 2010 - 12:51 pm EST

a little more information please. Why did the judge overturn the annexation? What was the reasoning behind his decision? State law spells out the procedures for an annexation even when opposed by those being annexed. Did the judge overturn the state law or find the city failed to meet some of the requirements? My suggestion is for the city to annex all around them and leave them in a little pocket all to themselves. When their well water drys up, so sorry.

Jeramy

February 8, 2010 - 2:49 pm EST

obiwon have you been out to these communities? They are not close to the city of Greensboro at all, the only thing connecting them to Greensboro is the new 85 that Greensboro annexed.

wscbd

February 8, 2010 - 3:10 pm EST

If you support these residents, then you do them no service by stating misinformation. These subdivisions are just a minute or two, at most, from areas that have been within Greensboro's limits for decades. Heck, it only takes 15 minutes to get from downtown to McLeansville School. I've made that drive often.

Jeramy

February 9, 2010 - 4:25 pm EST

wscbd I am one of these residents and we are in no way close to the city at all, when you get on 40 leaving these subdivisions the sign says Greensboro 8 miles if you can cover that distance in a minute or two maybe the highway patrol needs to keep an eye on your rocket car flying down the road.

Cemetery

February 8, 2010 - 1:30 pm EST

Why is there a photo of the "Greensboro skyline" tacked on an article about the city of McLeansville?

wscbd

February 8, 2010 - 1:42 pm EST

Good point, but McLeansville isn't a city. It's not even a town. It's an unincorporated community.

J.M.W.

February 8, 2010 - 7:13 pm EST

McLeansville does have a pool hall. Despite all the drug activity and the unattended children, it's really pretty nice.

Get Real

February 9, 2010 - 1:35 am EST

Because it's about a Greensboro annexation.

DaveW

February 8, 2010 - 1:30 pm EST

Good for McLeansville. They should have become an incorporated town back when Sedalia, Summerfield, Pleasant Garden etc did when that was possible a few years back.

StealYourFace

February 9, 2010 - 12:12 pm EST

Yeah...a LOT of good that has done those communities. Pleasant Garden, Sedalia, and Summerfield all have MAJOR issues. Most of those issues relate to the fact that they are having difficulty standing alone as individual towns where the citizens want the convenience and functions of a larger town or city, but without paying taxes. Therefore, their Councils have made their own news by fighting each other tooth and nail instead of working together for the betterment of their communities. There is not a "free ride", folks...

AdamCharlie12

February 8, 2010 - 1:31 pm EST

A win for the little guys! It'a about time that the arrogant City of Greensboro took a defeat. The news paper will not give too much information about this type of thing. The newspaper always refers to the county as the "un-incorporated" areas, like they are a bunch of hicks. The newspaper favors the city. They always print and report things like this in a way to favor the city. The annexation laws in this state need to be changed. Hopefully, this will slow down the blight of the city. Especially since their services can be a joke. (Like police services all the way out there! Forget a quick response when all of their cars have to stay in the crime invested areas.) There is hope!

iamwatchingyou

February 8, 2010 - 8:06 pm EST

What the city should do is recalculate the water and sewer rates, deduct the amount from the city taxes paid, then shut off water, sewer, garbage pickup and fire services.

Indy1776

February 9, 2010 - 12:20 pm EST

Why do you feel it is necessary to punish them? Water, sewer and fire protection are paid services, they are not paid for by property taxes in North Carolina.

Mycroft

February 8, 2010 - 1:46 pm EST

I'm sure the residents of McLeansville would be quite happy if Greensboro annexed all around them and left them alone. What would they be missing? Mainly helping Greensboro with its over-extended budget, a swim complex, and probably a new hotel. They'd miss the annual tax increases as Greensboro can't say no to any proposal regardless of the cost. And, they could afford to drill a new well every few years with the money they wouldn't be paying in city taxes.

triadwatch

February 8, 2010 - 4:04 pm EST

just like sedgefield is right now, not a part of greensboro but surrounded by the city of greensboro

redclayramblers

February 8, 2010 - 7:52 pm EST

McLeansville should not incorporate. That area is land rich but soil poor. The soils are too bad in that area to support high density development. Without the hope for city sewer they would die a slow death.

Mick

February 8, 2010 - 3:10 pm EST

They do not have wells or septic systems. They are all dependant on city services in that regard. They would be hard pressed to "drill new wells every few years" with the savings from tax decrease but increases in garbage and double water/sewer rates.

Best bet is to say lesson learnded all around and just continue to provide them with double rated water/sewer. leave em in the burbs which is where they truly are anyway.

EGParent

February 8, 2010 - 3:11 pm EST

I'll take my well water over city water anytime....

Mick

February 8, 2010 - 6:17 pm EST

They never had wells.

2001

February 8, 2010 - 3:30 pm EST

I know this area well, i'm sure they are much better off, with out being in the city, and the city is better off by not having to provide them services, this is a ture win / win for both. The city staff needs to spend more time working on all of the problems they have with the areas that are already in the city and leaving these county people along.

Althought she was talking about oil and not water, as Sarah whoud say, drill baby drill !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Call BIlly Yow he drills wells.

Mick

February 8, 2010 - 6:18 pm EST

what about septic on 8000 sf lots?

timflowers

February 8, 2010 - 5:13 pm EST

People love to criticize Greensboro, but without the city the vast majority of the jobs, stores, and services that the critics need and enjoy wouldn't be anywhere near here. The only reason people can build those nice homes out in the county while avoiding city taxes is because the city exists as a magnet for industries and other businesses.

The Triad without Greensboro would be like eastern North Carolina, an area where jobs and opportunities are scarce and the population has been dropping for decades.

Even if you hate the city for some reason, it's vital for everyone's sake that it prosper and grow.

Jeff Deal

February 8, 2010 - 9:09 pm EST

Most residents of the eastern county do their shopping, etc. in west Burlington. Many also work in Burlington and points east. Burlington is in no apparent way dependent on Greensboro.

wscbd

February 9, 2010 - 8:05 am EST

You are incorrect. Both Greensboro and the Triangle are vitally important to Burlington, which would languish without either (even more than it already has). Most residents of Alamance County commute to other counties for work and play.

redclayramblers

February 8, 2010 - 7:47 pm EST

This is satellite annexation. These lots were built to City of Greensboro subdivsion standards with water and sewer. Those lots are too small for well and septic with 1-acre minimum lot size. Don't blame the city, blame the tract builders/developers and the city council. These developers go to the city to be voluntarily annexed if water and sewer are provided. The request goes to the town council. The adjacent residents in Guilford County do not even have an elected voice to protest these developments at the city council because their elected representatives are the county commisioners.

Indy1776

February 9, 2010 - 12:25 pm EST

It's called "zoning for sale", another corrupt practice in North Carolina. Very few states in the US allow this type of annexation, and none allow it without oversight by a third party...only in corrupt North Carolina.

HotRodLincoln

February 9, 2010 - 12:26 am EST

I hope the Eden city council reads this and it helps hold them at bay for a while.

Interested

February 9, 2010 - 8:16 am EST

So many of these responses center on water and sewer services as if these are not generally available outside "city limits." Perhaps many of the letter writers have never lived in smaller areas of the state and have no other reference point from which to base their ideas regarding these matters. But living in a rural county, water and sewer, while not offered throughout the entire county, is offered in many areas of the county that are not incorporated. This is not necessarily a "city service" but instead a county service.

StealYourFace

February 9, 2010 - 11:52 am EST

The judge here has made an error, in my opinion. Greensboro entered into a contract with the developers - in exchange for water and sewer, they agreed to be annexed into the city limits. This is done to allow the logical extension of utilities to areas that otherwise wouldn't have that option. The City followed the law in the annexation process. The judge should have been taken action against the developers (if they are still around) and any realtors involved. These are the real criminals. The realtors should have explained to each potential owner that they were subject to the contracts that the developer made with the City; including requirements to have the owner's "sign-off" on the disclosure. Too many realtors get away with not doing their job correctly. Instead, the landowners take out their frustrations on city staffers and file lawsuits which only serve to facilitate quick transfer of cash from the landowners to their attorneys. I hope the City of Greensboro fights this. Having the ability to annex in a logical manner is one of the most important sticks in the government's bundle of land use rights.

Interested

February 9, 2010 - 3:13 pm EST

If the city had entered into a legally binding agreement with these developers on these particular parcels of land, why was nothing noted on the deeds? Typically, if the electric co., for example, has an easement, this is noted on the deed so that future owners are aware of any rights/claims others might have to the use of the property. While this is not an easement per se, I still wonder why a legal notation would not be made. Any real estate attorneys with any info to offer?

As to the realtors being "the real criminals," who's to say? What if the realtor who sold the property came to the area after the agreement had been made between the developers and the city and was unaware of the situation. There are too many unknowns here for you to make such an assertion.

eMail Updates

Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search