Docstoc

complaint

Document Sample
complaint Powered By Docstoc
					STATE OF NORTH CAROLNA                       IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
                                                 SUPERIOR COURT DIYISION
COLNTY OF BRLINSWICK                                        ll-cvS- [5()      |



THE ROYAL OAK CONCERNED
CITIZENS ASSOCIATION, CURTIS
MCMILLIAN and DENNIS
MCMILLIAN,
                                                       COMPLAINT FOR RELIEF
        Plaintiffs

V.


BRLINSWICK COLNTY.

        Defendant.




        Plaintiffs, through the undersigned counsel, respectfully state the following for

their Complaint against Defendant:

                               NATURE OF THE ACTION

        1.      This is a civil rights action for declaratory and injunctive relief and

damages to remedy Defendant's illegal rezoning and violation of the rights of African

American and other residents of a predominantly African American community outside

of Supply in Brunswick County, North Carolina. On April 4,201 l, Defendant rezoned

parcels in Plaintiffs' community from Rural Residential to Industrial General, with the

express intent of expanding the existing   landfill. The rezoning   was conducted without

considering all other possible uses for the parcel as required by law, is illegal "spot"

zoning, is not compatible with the comprehensive land use plan, and is arbitrary and

capricious and not based on a rational consideration of the general welfare of Plaintiffs or

the citizens of Brunswick County.
       2.      This action also stems from Defendant's long-time racially discriminatory

pattern and practice of denying public water and sewer service to Plaintiffs because they

are African American and because they reside in a predominantly African American

neighborhood, and from Defendant's racially discriminatory pattern and practice           of

disproportionately and intentionally burdening Plaintiffs and their community with

hazardous and locally unwanted land uses       ("LULUs"). The most recent manifestation of

this pattern and practice is Defendant's decision to rezone the parcels in Plaintiffs'

community to Industrial General to allow Defendant to double the size of the existing

landfill and permit even more numerous hazardous and unwanted land           uses in   Plaintiffs'

community.

       3.      Unlike other County residents without access to water and sewer services,

Plaintiffs not only lack these basic services, but have already endured a disproportionate

number of environmental hazards and now face a significant increase in environmental

hazards due to the rezoning and the dramatically expanded       landfill. Thus, they    are in

essence "hostages" to an imperiled and contaminated water supply and mounting

environmental hazards, with no end in sight. They are ignored as a community in their

request for basic services, yet serve as the   priority location for virtually every foreseeable

environmental hazard in the county. Not only are the continual denial of services and

pattern and practice of locating LULUs a result of intentional discrimination by the

county against this community, these actions also have a disparate impact on this African

American community and have the effect of perpetuating segregation by discouraging

other residents from movins to Roval Oak.
          4.      Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to North Carolina's Declaratory

Judgment Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. $$ 1-253 -267, N.C. Gen. Stat. $$ 153,A.-340-349,the

North Carolina Fair Housing Act, as amended, N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 4lA-l et seq. (NCFHA),

and the Equal Protection Clause of the North Carolina Constitution, N.C. Const.      art.l,

$   1e.


                                           PARTIES

          5.      Plaintiff Royal Oak Concerned Citizens Association ("ROCCA") is an

unincorporated community association made up of citizens and residents of Brunswick

County, North Carolina, and exists for the purpose of protecting the quality of life and

environment of Royal Oak. ROCCA's membership, like the Royal Oak community

itself, is almost entirely African American.

          6.      ROCCA was formed about four years ago for the above stated purpose

and has continued to advocate on behalf of the community in oppositiontohazardous and

unwanted land uses in Royal Oak, and for water and sewer service.

          7   .   Lewis Dozier is the President of the Royal Oak Concerned Citizens

Association and resides in the Royal Oak Community at 1060 Green Swamp Road NW,

in Supply, North Carolina.

          8.      The Royal Oak community is geographically defined as follows:

beginning at the intersection of N.C. Highway      2ll   and   Big Macedonia Road; west on Big

Macedonia Road (houses on both sides of road) to Makatoka Rd; north on Makatoka

Road to Little Macedonia Road (including Hankins Way off to the west); east on Little

Macedonia Road; across N.C. Hwy. 211 Little Macedonia Road becomes Middle River

Road and extending along Middle River Road to its termination; southeast in a straight
line to the intersection of Galloway and Landfill road; and southwest in a straight line to

the beginning point at the intersection of Big Macedonia Road and N.C. Hwy. 2111'

including all the side streets contained within these boundaries: Running Brook Trail,

Skyview Lane, Smith Rd, Zane Way, Pearl Wuy, Grant Wuy, Foxtrot Wuy, and Deerview

way.

        9.          Plaintiff Curtis McMillian ("Rev. McMillian") is a citizen and resident of

Brunswick County, North Carolina. Rev. McMillian is African American, and has

resided at 412 Middle River Road, parcel 1370000802, in Supply, North Carolina, since

1964. Rev. McMillan owns his residence. and has never received water or sewer services

at this address.

        10.         Rev. McMillian is also part owner of more than fifty acres of land   at40l

Smith Road East in Supply, North Carolina, parcel number 15200021, which abuts the

the landfill expansion parcels to the southeast.

        1   I   .   Plaintiff Dennis McMillian is a citizen and resident of Brunswick County,

North Carolina. Plaintiff Dennis McMillian is African American, and has lived at 390

Middle River Road in Supply, North Carolina since 1995.

         12.        Defendant Brunswick County is a political subdivision organized under

the laws of the State of North Carolina.

         13.        Defendant includes each and every current Brunswick County

Commissioner in his or her official capacity.

                                 JURISDICTION AND VENUB

         14.        Defendant and its individual Commissioners are subject to the jurisdiction

of this Court pursuant to North Carolina's Declaratory Judgment Ac| N.C. Gen. Stat. $$
1-253 -267, N.C. Gen. Stat. $$       1534-340-349,the North Carolina Fair Housing Act,      as


amended, N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 4lA-I et seq. (NCFHA), and the Equal Protection Clause         of

the North Carolina Constitution, N.C. Const.      art.I, $ 19.

        15.        Venue for this matter is properly in Brunswick County pursuant to N.C.

Gen. Stat. $ $ 1-77, l-82 and 41A- 1 0.

                                   FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

        16.        Brunswick County has a long history of racial segregation and

discrimination. Upon information and belief, the County maintained racially segregated

public facilities prior to enforcement of federal desegregation laws.

        17   .     According to data from the 2010 Census, African Americans constitute

only about       ll%   of the County population. The census blocks encompassing the Royal

Oak community, however, are nearly 100% African-American. See maps showing

demography and population density, attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2.

        18.        The Royal Oak community has been predominantly African American

since the 1800s. Upon information and belief, the land in Royal Oak was available to

freed slaves, due to the fact that it was and continues to be mostly swamp, had to be

drained before it could be farmed, and was thus worth much less money than the land

owned by white people.

        19.        Direct descendents of the freed slaves who owned parcels of land in Royal

Oak still reside in Royal Oak today, and are members of ROCCA.

       20.         Brunswick County has experienced substantial residential development

and recreation, particularly along the coast. Upon information and belief, most of those

developments, as well as the residences within them, are owned by white people.
        21.      Richmond Hills is a new housing development located adjacent to Royal

Oak, off Big Macedonia Road.

        22.      Upon information and belief, most of the Richmond Hills properties

remain vacant due in large part to the location of the current landfill and other locally

unwanted land uses (LULUs) in the area.

        23.      In 1981, members of ROCCA supported a bond referendum for the

extension of water and sewer infrastructure to the areawhich included Royal Oak.

        24.      Due in large part to the efforts by African American residents, the bond

referendum passed.

        25.      Brunswick County did not use that bond money to supply water and sewer

service to the Royal Oak community.

        26.      An actual controversy exists between the Plaintiffs and Defendant with

respect to Plaintiffs' rights and other legal relations and obligations as alleged herein.

        27   .   Prior to 1983 Defendant sited and began to operate an unlined municipal

solid waste landfill on Landfill Road in the Royal Oak community.

        28.      Due to new regulations effective in 1983 the unlined landfill was no

longer allowed to accept municipal solid waste and could only operate as a construction

and debris   ("C&D") landfill.

        29.      On information and beliel Defendant continued to dump municipal waste

of all kinds into the landfill until 1997 .

        30.      In   1999, Defendant commissioned a site evaluation for a new municipal

solid waste landfill which examined four tracts, all of which were located in the Royal

Oak community.
       31.      Ln2007 , Defendant commissioned a feasibility study for the   C&D landfill

which considered various expansion options and hauling the waste out of county, but did

not consider any sites outside of the Royal Oak community.

       32.      Brunswick County adopted a Unified Development Ordinance ("uDO")

effective Muy 1,2007   .




       3   3.   On information and belief, Defendant had determined to expand the C&D

landfill, and its agents had met with representatives from the North Carolina Department

of Environment and Natural Resources ("NCDENR") to discuss whether the parcels

would be acceptable for a landfill expansion prior to April 15,2009,

       34.      On October 19 2009, Defendant held a public workshop on the C&D

landfill and discussed expanding the landfill.

       35.      1n2009, Defendant paid fines to the NCDENR for illegal dumping of

asbestos, creosote, and chemically treated lumber into the landfill.

       36.      On or about June 3,2010, Brunswick County purchased parcels numbered

1370000806 ("806") and 15200058 ("058") from Tripp's Construction,        LLC.   Said

parcels abut the existing C&D landfill on parcel 15200045.

       37   .   All three aforementioned parcels abut the Middle River, which divides   the

existing landfill, 15200045, from the newly acquired parcels 806 and 058.

       38.      On information and belief, Brunswick County purchased said parcels for

the sole purpose of expanding the C&D landfill.

        39.     On November 15,2010, the Brunswick County Commissioners discussed

the process to expand the   landfill.   Board Chair William Sue described the expansion as
"a long time coming." Plaintiff Curtis McMillian and other members of ROCCA

addressed the Board and spoke against expanding the landfill.

        40.     On December 20,2010, Defendant held both a regular board meeting and

a special workshop on the   landfill expansion. At both meetings Plaintiffs spoke against

the landfill cxpansion.

       41   .   On information and belief, no members of the public spoke in favor of the

expansion at either meeting.

       42.      On January 24,2011, Defendant called a meeting to allow citizens to

express their opinions concerning the landfill expansion.

        43.     County officials were present at the January 24,201 1 meeting to answer

questions and address concerns the community had about the landfill expansion.

        44.     Plaintiffs raised concerns at the meeting about the disproportionate burden

of health hazards born by African American residents due to the fact that the landfill and

the animal shelter were located in their community.

        45.     At the January 24,201 I meeting, ROCCA member and Royal Oak

property owner James Hardy specifically requested that Defendant extend the water lines

to the Royal Oak community.

       46.      Mr. Hardy also raised concerns about the fact that the St. James

communrty, a relatively new, majority-White housing development, has access to water

and sewer services.

       47.      The animal shelter used to be near the Winding River subdivision but was

relocated to the Royal Oak communitv in 2000.
        48.     On March 1,2010, Defendant commissioned a siting study for the

proposed expansion from Dewberry and Davis, Inc. The study only considered the

parcels in Royal Oak (806 and 058) acquired by the county in June 2010.

       49.      Prior to April 4,201 1, parcels numbered 806 and 058 had been zoned

Rural Residential, as described in the UDO and the attached Brunswisk County Zonrng

Map dated December 1 0, 2010. Exhibit 3.

       50.      Rural Low Density Residential and Industrial General are general zoning

districts which each contain numerous uses as of right, as well as conditional uses,   as


outlined in Brunswick County's UDO sections 4.8.4.10. and 5.2.3.

       51   .   Property owned by the Plaintiffs and the property owned and rezoned by

the Defendant to expand the landfill is primarily sunounded by a large area uniformly

zoned Rural Residential.

       52.      On December 13,2010, the Brunswick County Planning Board considered

zoning amendment2-11-667 to rezone parcels numbered 806 and 058 from Rural

Residential to Industrial General. Plaintiffs spoke against the rezoning and the landfill

expansion. The rezoning was tabled until February    7   ,207I.
       53.      At the December 13,2010 meeting, County Attorney Berg warned the

Planning Board not to consider specific uses in their zoning decision.

       54.      The expansion of the landfill was the only use considered by the Planning

Board at the December   13   ,2010 meeting.

       55.      On information and belief, at the December 13,2070 meeting no members

of the public requested to speak or spoke in favor of the rezoning.
          56,      On February 7 ,201 1, the County Planning Board again considered Z-11-

667   .




          57   .   The expansion of the landfill was the only use considered by the Planning

Board at the February     7   .201   1   meetins.

          58.      At the February 7,201 1 meeting Plaintiffs again spoke against the

rezoning and the landfill expansion.

          59.      On February 7,201 1, by a vote of 5-1, the Planning Board recommended

that Defendant approve the rezoning of portions of the two parcels from Rural

Residential to Industrial General.

          60.      The Brunswick County Planning Department found that the rezoning was

not consistent with the comprehensive land use plan.

          61.      The rezoning was not in accordance with the land use plan because the

parcels do not fit the requirements under the plan for Industrial General zoning,

including, among others, access to a major road, highway, or railroad; the prohibition

under Industrial General on residential uses which are prevalent in the area; and access to

needed emergency services, including fire protection.

          62.      There have been no changed circumstances in the area since the adoption

of the 2007 plan which would justify the rezoning.

          63.      On April4,201 1, Defendant approved the rezoning of both parcels, in

their entirety, from Rural Residential to Industrial General.

          64.      Defendant failed to find, nor was there evidence presented at public

hearings, to find that the land was suitable for all Industrial General uses.




                                                    l0
          65.     Defendant failed to consider whether the property was suitable for all the

Industrial General uses.

         66.      Defendant gave no consideration to the objections raised and the public

oral and written comments submitted against the rezoning.

         67   .   On information and belief, at no time have any members of the public

spoken at a Board of Commissioners meeting either in favor of the landfill, or of rezoning

the parcels to Industrial General.

         68.      On April 18, 2011, Defendant passed a resolution in support of expanding

the   landfill onto the newly rezoned parcels.

          69.     Members of ROCCA spoke during the public hearing process related to

the rezoning decision, as representatives of their own rights and interests as well as the

rights and interests of all members of ROCCA and of residents of Royal Oak.

         70.      Parcels 806 and 058 are not appropriate for most uses allowed as of right

under Industrial General zoning because the parcels have neither water nor sewer service.

         7l.      Parcels 806 and 058 are not appropriate for most uses allowed as of right

under Industrial General zoning because they do not have access to either a railroad or a

major road.

         72.      Parcel 806 has road frontage only on Middle River Road NE, which is not

a   major road.

         73.      Parcel number 058 has no road frontage.

         74.      Both parcels are immediately adjacent to and contain wetlands.

         75.      Both parcels are in the Royal Oak community, apredominantly low

income, majority African American residential community.



                                                 11
       76.         On information and belief, there is sufficient other land in Brunswick

County that would be more appropriate for a landfill and Industrial General zoning than

the parcels Defendant selected because of the parcels' poor soil, proximity to wetlands,

disproportionate burden on an African American community, and lack of adequate road

access for trucks and emergency services.

       77      .   On information and belief, a previous fire on Middle River Road led to the

death of a resident of Royal Oak because Middle River Road was inaccessible to

emergency vehicles.

        78.        On information and belief, Defendant has conducted no siting study to

identify other potential locations for   a new   C&D landfill.

       79.         Defendant is under no obligation to operate a C&D landfill.

       80.         Defendant has no immediate need to operate a C&D landfill.

       B   I   .   In Defendant' s 2007 CAMA Land Use Plan, Defendant asserted that the

C&D landfill facility had excess capacity to support the County and potential growth

throughout the planning period (2005-2012).

       82.         Defbndant currently contracts with Sandlands C&D Landfill, LLC to

dispose of C&D waste outside of the county.

       83.         On information and belief, Sandlands and other private parties have the

capacity to accommodate all C&D waste produced in Brunswick County.

       84.         Most uses allowed as of right under Industrial General zoning are

incompatible with a residential community and would have an adverse effect on the

health, safety, quality of life, and property values of the surrounding community.




                                                 12
        85.      Uses that would be allowed under Industrial General zoning as of right

include, among others, agricultural industry, boat repair and manufacturing, incinerators

for the disposal of animal remains, and both heavy and light industry.

        86.      With approval by the planning board or board of adjustment, other uses

contemplated in an Industrial General zone include, among others, correctional facilities,

airports, major utilities, adult businesses, electronic gaming, racetracks, power plants,

junkyards, mining operations, landfills, and hazardous waste facilities.

        87   .   The Royal Oak community has been subjected to increased heavy traffic

as a result of the location and operation   of   the current landfill in the community.

        88.      The Royal Oak community has been subjected to increased exposure to

noise, including from trucks and heavy equipment as a result of the location and

operation of the current landfill in the community.

        89.      The Royal Oak community has been subjected to increased pollution as a

result of the location and operation of the current landfill in the community.

        90.      The Royal Oak community has been subjected to foul odors as a result of

the location and operation of the current landfill in the community.

        91.      The Royal Oak community has been subjected to the diminution of

property values as a result of the location and operation of the current landfill in the

community.

       92.       The Royal Oak community has been subjected to contaminated drinking

water as a result of the location and operation of the current landfill in the community.

       93.       The Royal Oak community has been subjected to increased risk of fire as a

result of the location and operation of the current landfill in the community.



                                                 t3
        94.          The Royal Oak community has been subjected to potential greater impact

on drinking water due to an increased propensity for sink holes near landfills as a result

of the location and operation of the current landfill in the community.

       95.           The above-described adverse effects will be greatly increased with the

proposed landfill expansion, or with most uses allowed under Industrial General.

        96.          The rezoned property is small relative to the thousands of acres of Rural

Residential property that almost surround it.

       97    .       Defendant failed to provide a clear showing of a reasonable basis for the

rezoning.

        100.         The proposed C&D landfill is not needed, as there are currently available

private alternatives, including recycling, and hauling the waste to another landfill, as is

already done with a portion of the C&D waste and with all other forms of waste

generated in the County.

        I   0l   .   The proposed C&D landfill is of no direct benefit to Plaintiffs and other

residents living near the landfill, or the surrounding community.

        102.         Defendant possesses the sole authority to approve and finance the

provision of water and sewer service to Plaintiffs and other residents of Royal Oak.

        103.         Upon information and belief, Defendant has encouraged, authorrzed and

facilitated the construction and management of water and sewer projects which

disproportionately serve white residents of Brunswick County.

        104.         Upon information and belief, Defendant has received, and continues to

receive, federal Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") funds that are used for

water and sanitary sewer programs.



                                                  14
         105.         Plaintiffs have repeatedly requested that Defendant provide them with

water and sewer services.

         106.         Defendant has to this day failed to provide water and sewer service to

Plaintiffs.

         107.         Within the last three years, ROCCA member Lewis Dozier asked

Defendant why it failed to provide water and sewer access to Royal Oak when it installed

water and sewer lines to the county animal shelter, which is located near the Royal Oak

community.

         108.         Defendant did not provide any reasonable explanation for stopping the

water and sewer access at the border of Royal Oak.

         109.         Upon information and belief, Defendant has been, and is, generally aware

of the demographic information of the Royal Oak community, and of the disparity in the

community's access to public water and sewer service.

         I   10.      Defendant continues to deny access to public water and sewer service to

African American residents' homes, while providing that service to white residents'

homes.

         1   I   1.   The contamination of ground water by the landfill and the animal shelter,

and the effect of the sand mines permitted by the Defendant on the quality and quantity         of
the groundwater, have made Defendant's denial of public water even more harmful and

damaging to Plaintiffs.

         112.         Defendant provides different public services to the Royal Oak community

because of the race of the residents.




                                                  15
         1   1   3.   Defendant has disproportionately burdened African American residents of

Brunswick County with the harms that flow from living near Industrial General zoning,

by repeatedly, and as part of a pattern and practice of discrimination, locating Industrial

General zoned parcels near African American communities.

         114. Based on an odds ratio test using2010              Census block data, African

Americans have almost double the odds relative to Whites of living within a half mile of

a   LIJLL in Brunswick County. There is a one in             1000 chance that this result is due to

race-neutral decision-makins.

         1   15.      The County is only    llyo African American, but 98% of residents living

within 2500 feet of the landfill are African American.

         116.         Upon information and belief, Defendant's original siting of the solid waste

landfill and other LULUs in Plaintiffs' community was motivated by racially

discriminatory intent, has a disparate impact on African American residents, and

perpetuates residential segregation.

         117.         The presence of a landfill in or near a community makes that communrty a

less desirable place to live.

         I   18.      Since the original   landfill siting and the approval and installation of the

current LULIJs, Defendant has continued the pattern and practice of discrimination

against Plaintiffs by deciding, on April 4,201          I to rezone   the parcels Industrial General

and on   April 18,2011, to expand the current C&D landfill.

         119.         In selecting the landfill expansion site, Defendant substantially deviated

from its usual decision-making process.




                                                      16
        120.    Defendant purchased parcels 806 and 058 in June 2010 with the intent of

putting a landfill on the parcels.

        121.    Defendant then began the process of rezoning the parcels Industrial

General with the goal of siting the landfill there, without considering all other Industrial

General uses.

        122.    Within a few weeks of rezoning the parcel from Rural Residential to

Industrial General, Defendant passed a resolution to expand the current landfill site onto

the new parcels.

        123. In selecting the landfill expansion site, Defendant overlooked      the fact that

the site is, for many reasons, not appropriate for such a purpose, or deliberately chose the

site without regard to its legal obligations.

        124.    There are other locations, not near or in a predominantly Afncan

American communitv. which are better suited for a C&D landfill than this site.

         125.   Defendant failed to consider other sites for the landfill before purchasing

the land.

         126.   Defendant does not need to expand the landfill at all, as there are

alternative ways to dispose of future C&D waste which are more feasible than expanding

the landfill.

         127.   In selecting the landfill expansion site, Defendant discriminated against

Plaintiffs because of their race, both in purpose and effect, and perpetuated residential

segregation.

         128.   Defendant knew or should have known that residents of the predominantly

African American Royal Oak community disproportionately bear the harms that flow



                                                t7
from living near the current landfill and other numerous LULUs near or in their

communitv.

        129. Defendant has intentionally      and with discriminatory effect maintained a

pattern and practice of disproportionately burdening residents of the Royal Oak

communitv with LULUs.

        130.     The pattern and practice of discrimination by Defendant, described above,

constitutes a continuing violation of the rights of Plaintiffs.

        l3 I .   Defendant has denied and interfered with, and is continuing to deny and

interfere with, the availability, habitability, and enjoyment of privileges and conditions   of

use and ownership of   Plaintiffs' property by failing to provide water and sewer services,

the rezoning, the operation of the current landfill, and the landfill expansion.

        132.     Because of the contamination from the    landfill and other LULUs located

in their communitv. Plaintiffs cannot make full or safe use of the water obtained from

their wells.

        133.     Many ROCCA members, particularly those living closest to the landfill

and the animal shelter, and Plaintiffs Dennis and Rev.    McMillian are forced to purchase

bottled water for drinking and cooking, ffid must pay costs associated with damage to

their wells, hot water tanks, clothes and appliances resulting from contaminated water

and sand that flows into their water supply.

         134.    Because of his well water's foul taste, color, odor and affect on his

laundry, since the late 1980s, Rev. McMillian has purchased bottled water for drinking

and cooking, and uses a water softener system. This causes him considerable expense

and inconvenience. These are expenses not borne by white residents with public water.



                                                18
        135.     Rev. McMillian also has problems with his septic system, resulting in

more expense and inconvenience. These are expenses not borne by white residents with

public sewer.

        136.      The value of Rev. McMillian's property has been substantially and

negatively affected by the denial of water and sewer services, the rezoning, the operation

of the current landfill, and the landfill expansion.

        137. Because of his well water's foul taste, color, odor, Plaintiff   Dennis

McMillian buys bottled water for drinking and cooking.

        138.      Plaintiff Dennis McMillian had to replace his well several years ago when

his first well collapsed; however, he still frequently finds sand in the water pumped from

his well.   All of these issues have   caused him considerable expense and inconvenience.

For example, although Plaintiff Dennis McMillian has not purchased a water softener

system due to its costliness, he is preparing to purchase a whole-home water filtration

system due to the effect of his well water on laundry, as well as the water's foul taste,

color and odor.

        139.      The above-described expenses and inconveniences are not borne by white

residents with public water.

        140.      James Hardy is   African American. His family is from Royal Oak. He

lives in Brunswick County and owns substantial property in Royal Oak. Mr. Hardy's

wife, Jacqueline Hardy, is also African American, is from Royal Oak, and owns property

in the community, as does the Hardys' son, Mark Hardy.




                                                l9
          l4l.      Mark Hardy owns property at 613 Smith Road in Supply, North Carolina.

Mr. Hardy wants to move into the house at that address, but has not been able to do so

because of the unavailability of potable water from the well.

          142. During the summer of 2010, the Hardys sought to put in a well in at 613
Smith Road, but Defendant would not permit the well bEcause the groundwater did not

pass the County's inspection criteria.

          143.      The water from the current well at 613 Smith Road is so poor in quality,

including its color, taste and odor, that the house at that address is uninhabitable without

access to public water services.

          144. Plaintiffs'    properties are significantly devalued due to the denial of water

and sewer service, and due to the presence of the landfill and the Industrial General

zoning.

          145.      ROCCA includes members that own parcels in Royal Oak which, because

they are less than .46 acres in size, cannot be developed without water and sewer service.

          146. By denying       water and sewer services to the Royal Oak community,

Defendant is denying and interfering with the availability, habitability, and enjoyment of

privileges of use and ownership of the property of several ROCCA members.

          147   .   As a proximate result of Defendant's actions described above, Plaintiffs

have suffered and are continuing to suffer injuries including, but not limited to,

deprivation of their constitutional and statutory rights, economic loss, humiliation,

embarrassment, and emotional distress.




                                                 20
                                 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
                          (North Carolina Declaratory Judgment Act,
                                 N.C. Gen. Stat. $1-254 et seq,)

        148.    The preceding allegations in this Complaint are realleged and incorporated

by reference as if fully set forth herein.

        149.    The zoning ordinance Z-11-667 adopted on April 4,201        I   is unlawful,

invalid and void because Defendant failed to consider whether the targeted property was

suitable fbr all uses allowed under the new zoning.

        150.    The zoning ordinance    Z-ll-667   adopted on   April 4,201 1 constitutes      spot

zoning, in that it rezones a relatively small area belonging to a single owner which is

largely surrounded by a much larger area uniformly zoned Rural Residential, and

imposes fewer restrictions on the smaller tract than the large area.

        151.    The zoning ordinance Z-11-667 adopted on April 4,201 1 is unlawful,

invalid, and void spot zoning because Defendant made no clear showing of          a reasonable

basis for the rezoning.

        152.    Parcels 806 and 058 are or contain areas of environmental concern as

defined by the Coastal Area Management Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 113.{-100, et. seq.

        153.    The zoning ordinance Z-11-667 adopted on April 4,201        I   is unlawful,

invalid, and void because it does not conform to Defendant's comprehensive land use

plan as required by North Carolina General Statute $ 153A-341 and the Coastal Area

Management Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 1l3A-100, et. seq.

        154.    The zoning ordinance    Z-ll-667   adopted on   April 4,201 I is unlawful,

invalid, and void because it was arbitrary and capricious and not based on a rational

consideration of the general welfare of Plaintiffs or the citizens of Brunswick County.



                                             2l
        155.     For the above reasons, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory judgment that

the rezoning was unlawful, invalid, and      void. Plaintiffs are also entitled to other legal

and equitable relief.

                             SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
             (Violations of the North Carolina Fair Housing Act (NCFHA)'
                              N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 4lA-l et seq.)

        156.     The preceding allegations in this Complaint are realleged and incorporated

by reference as if fully set forth herein.

        157.     By the actions described above, Defendant has violated, and continues to

violate, the rights of Plaintiffs under the NCFHA, $ 41A-I et seq.,by:

            a. Making unavailable      or denying dwellings to persons because of race, in

                 violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 41A-4(aX1);

            b.   Discriminating on the basis of race in the terms, conditions, or privileges

                 cf the provision of services or facilities in connection with the sale or

                 rental of a dwelling, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. $ 41A-4(a)(2); and

            c.   Interfering with Plaintiffs' exercise or enjoyment of their rights under the

                 NCFHA, in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. $ alA-a(e).

         158.    By the actions described above, Defendant has engaged in, and continues

to engage in a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American and other

residents of the Royal Oak community due to their race, or the racial composition of their

neighborhood, in violation of the NCFHA.

         159.     The past and continuing acts and conduct of the Defendant, described

 above, were and are intentional, had and have discriminatory effect, perpetuate residential




                                                  22
segregation, and have been carried out willfully and with reckless indifference to the

protected rights of Plaintiffs and to the spirit and purpose of the NCFHA.

        160. As a result of the Defendant's        actions, Plaintiffs have suffered and are
continuing to suffer great harm and injury, including but not limited to economic loss,
humiliation, embarrassment, and the deprivation of the right to access, enjoy and use
housing on an equal basis with other persons regardless of race.



                               THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
                         (Violations of the Equal Protection Clauseo
                         North Carolina Constitution Article I, S 19)

        161   .   The preceding allegations in this Complaint are realleged and incorporated

by reference as if fully set forth herein.

        162.      The above conduct of the Defendant has been taken under color of state

and local law.

        163.      By the actions described above, Defendant has deprived, and continues to

deprive, Plaintiffs of the rights, privileges, and immunities secured by the North Carolina

Constitution and other laws.

        164.      By the actions described above, Defendant has engaged in, and continues

to engage in a pattern and practice of discrimination against African American and other

residents of the Royal Oak community due to their race, or the racial composition of their

neighborhood, in violation of N.C. Const. Art. I, $ 19.

        165.      The past and continuing acts and conduct of Defendant, described above,

were and are intentional, and have been canied out with malice and reckless indifference

to the protected rights of Plaintiffs.




                                              23
        166. Defendant has intentionally,     knowingly, and continuously engaged in the

practices described above, with the intent of denying equal housing opportunities and

equal protection of law to Plaintiffs.

                                  PRAYER FOR RBLIEF

       WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court grant the following relief:

1.     That the Court declare the April 4,2011 rezoning void;

2.     That the Court perrnanently enjoin the Defendant from rezoning parcel 806 and

        058 to Industrial General;

3.     That the Court permanently enjoin the Defendant from expanding or otherwise

       intensiffing the use of the landfill in the Royal Oak community;

4.      That Plaintiffs have and recover of Defendants in excess of $10,000.00, plus

        interest, and any and all other additional amounts as are due and owing at the time

       of trial, as more fully described above;

5.     That Plaintiffs be awarded damages including, without limitation, compensatory,

        consequential, exemplary, and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at

       trial, plus interest, as allowed by law;

6.     That the costs of this action, including attorneys' fees, as allowed by law, be taxed

       against Defendants;

7.      That the Court declare the actions of the Defendant complained of herein to be in

        violation of the North Carolina Fair Housing Act;

8.      That the Court declare the actions of the Defendant complained of herein to be in

        violation of the North Carolina Constitution;




                                              24
9.      That the Defendant, their agents, employees, and successors be permanently

        enjoined from discriminating on the basis of against any persons in violation of

        the State Fair Housins Act or Article I Section I 9 of the North Carolina

        Constitution;

10.      For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

                                           JURY DEMAND

        Pursuant to Rule 38 of the N.C. Rules of     Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand a juty

trial on all issues triable as of right.


This 3'd day of June 2011.



                                                UNC CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
                                                                            ..



                                                Elizabeth Mclaughlin Haddix
                                                NC State Bar # 25818
                                                E-mail : emclaugh@email.unc. edu
                                                Telen\one: (91 9) 843-9807



                                                NC State Bar # 40415
                                                E-mail : pgilbert@emai l.unc.edu
                                                Telephone: (9 1 9) 843 -8197
                                                Facsimile: (91 9) 843-8784

                                                 1 01 East Weaver Street

                                                 Campus Box 3382
                                                 Carborro, NC 27 510

                                                 K&L GATES LLP


                                                 Ray       E Owens, Jr,
                                                           Bar # 8439


                                                25
E,-mail : ray. owens@kl gates. com
Telephone: (704) 331-7 496
Facsimile: (704) 353-3 1 96

K&L GATES LLP
Hearst Tower, 47th Floor
214 North Tryon Street
Charlotte, NC 28202



Att o r n ey s fo r P I a i nt iffs




26
T
m
x
o
=.
                                                                                                                                                                                ro
                                                                                                                                                                          .l'
                                                                                                                                                                     /"
                                                                                                                                                              !..\

                                                                                                                                                                     *!
                                                                                                                                                      ...-t
   Brunswick Co., NC                                                                                                                                                                 ,.-.,'
                                                                                                                                                                                             ,!:
                                                                                                                                                                                                   '".,'n.j !"
                                                                                                                                                                                                       .--.      i
                                                                                                                                                                                     :                           \-".
                                                                                                                                                                                     '--'r             '.;t'
   County parcels at Landfill
   I    New landfill parcels

   I :l Existing landfill parcel
   Blocks - Census 2010
   Population / sq. mile
           0

           1 - 100                                                                                                                                       ._-_* J
                                                                                                                                                                      I




       '   101 - 5oO                                                                                                                             \

   W       so1 - 2ooo

   I       zool -46ee6
                                                                                                                 /-"-t\
                                                                                                                          \-   --*-\'..,"
                                                                                                                                            .f

                                                                                                           ft
                                                                                                           a
                                                                                                            i
                                                                                                      )   /-rJ
                                                                                                      t
                                                                                                          ,
                                                                                                 t
                                                                                                 l"
                                                                                                !)
                                                                                               I
                                                                                               g.l
                                                                                                      )
                                                                                                 ?
                                                                                       /
                                                                                       [4
                                                                                            &J
                                                                                     ,}
                                                                         **ti

                                                       ..t                                                  L
                                                       t\*



                                     \.
                                      'l-
                                                              \-
                                                              \

                                                             ;3
                                            \F'



                                                  .,,i
                                                   {
                                                                                     l;,
                                                                                     r,:F.,1




                                                       '\                    Y.+:.

                                                                  \'             ilp
                                                                       \;l      !'sj4




                                   Miles
                        09
(c) 2011 cGISC           r
                                                                                                                                      Pl. Exhibit 2
                       rl)rJtltc {rlroag
                                   .l   l:




                               -        ,,1:..1   lr:
                                            t.'
                                        ''I
                                    "'*


             t'                              p:;[
                        6uruo7,'!uno3



      -*\t
      s.l'
 * . _-+
             s,.
                           pua60l
: =t<!-'
  .,'*j:i
                       SNINOZ
                   AfNnoS vSrMsNnuS

                                                        p   lre   ruxlra

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:47
posted:1/8/2012
language:
pages:29