Anderson Creek Partners, L.P. v. Cnty. of Harnett

Whether 'capacity use' fees charged to residential property developers for the purpose of expanding and improving the county's water and sewage system as a precondition for the county's concurrence in a developer's application to the Department of Environmental Quality for a required water and sewer permit constitute monetary exactions subject to review under the 'unconstitutional conditions' doctrine.

Files

These files may not be suitable for users of assistive technology. If you are having trouble accessing these files, you may request an accessible format.

Summary

Whether 'capacity use' fees charged to residential property developers for the purpose of expanding and improving the county's water and sewage system as a precondition for the county's concurrence in a developer's application to the Department of Environmental Quality for a required water and sewer permit constitute monetary exactions subject to review under the 'unconstitutional conditions' doctrine.