# Greene v. Town of Valdese

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · June 2, 1982 · 306 N.C. 79

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9584970

## Case

- **Full name:** CLEO O. GREENE, Et Al., Petitioner-Appellants v. THE TOWN OF VALDESE, Et Al., Respondent-Appellees; IN RE: ANNEXATION ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF VALDESE
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 2, 1982
- **Citations:** 306 N.C. 79; 291 S.E.2d 630; 1982 N.C. LEXIS 1376
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Carlton
- **Judges:** Branch, Carlton, Exum
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9584970

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying the two-part test for noncompliance with the topographic boundary condition contained in N.C.G.S. § 160A-36(d)

## Opinion text

Justice CARLTON
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority opinion which holds that the Town complied with the provisions of G.S. 160A-36(d) in fixing the area to be annexed. Like the majority, I have little authority to cite in support of my position. The issue here is one of statutory construction and I simply interpret the statutory scheme in a way which I believe more fully comports with the intent of our Legislature.
*89 The majority has in essence written the provisions of G.S. 160A-36(d) out of our annexation statutes. It holds that if a town complies with the provisions of G.S. 160A-36(a), (b) and (c), the area in question is then “ripe for annexation” and failure then to comply with G.S. 160A-36(d) will not defeat the annexation. I do not attach such little significance to subsection (d). I consider it a provision of limitation and believe that failure to comply with it prevents the area from being “ripe for annexation.”
In reaching its conclusion that tree lines are not “natural topographic features,” a holding with which I agree, the majority acknowledges the legislative intent behind the statute’s requirement that new boundaries follow natural topographic features where practical. That intent, suggests the majority, “was the legislature’s concern that the full range of municipal services be available to citizens in the annexed area” and resulted in the inclusion of “topography as an important consideration to be incorporated into the new statutory scheme of annexation.” The majority then proceeds to hold, in essence, that topography is not a consideration if the other annexation requirements are met. With such reasoning I cannot agree.
The record clearly establishes that the Town primarily followed property lines, not topographic lines, in establishing the boundaries of the area. It was noted that this practice was followed to avoid administrative and tax problems. (R. p. 49.) Stated simply, the Town found that it could not comply with the topographic requirements of subsection (d) of G.S. 160A-36 and still comply with the requirements of subsections (a), (b) and (c). When this situation is presented, I believe that the statute clearly precludes annexation.
The 1959 report of the Municipal Government Study Commission, cited by the majority, provides some insight on the Legislature’s reason for including the topographic requirement. It noted that topography is frequently an “effective limitation” on a city’s ability to extend facilities. For example, it may be impossible to extend sewer lines without expensive pumping stations. As the report concludes, if such services are not available, “then there is no justification for including such land within the city.” Thus, it is apparent that the topographical requirement of subsection (d) was intended as a limitation on annexation and not merely a suggestion.
*90 In a word, I believe that all the requirements of G.S. 160A-36 must be met before an area is “ripe for annexation” unless, for compelling reasons not given here, it is simply impracticable to comply with the topographic requirement.
Justice EXUM joins this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9584970. Public record. Not legal advice.