Annexation

I need some help. I live in a coastal community, which happens to be a 26 mile island with 3 townships. The township I live in has been severly mismanaged for years. To the point where we actually had to take the former Mayor to court to remove him as he wouldn't concede the election he lost. It gets worse. Needless to say the border city is very well managed and several residents want the well-managed city to annex us. I'm not sure how to begin this process, other than I've emailed the Mayor and councilman of the City we wish to annex us (awaiting response). But also, if I am part of an HOA does the entire HOA have to agree to be annexed or can some choose to be annexed and others not?

I understand that. My question is regarding an HOA. That was, does the entire HOA have to agree on annexation or can invidual homeowner's within an HOA go?

I say it is up to the municipality to annex. The HOA maigh have something to say about it but I doubt it could stop it.

This seems to give a nice overview, including why a city would want to annex an unincorporated land area:
https://charlottenc.gov/planning/AreaPlanning/Annexation/Pages/Annexation%20-%20FAQ.aspx

Kelly

So I better understand. You want the neighboring town to annex only your association. Is this correct?

Very unlikely, at least not without significant (ie. expensive) legal wrangling. But you really need someone with a legal background to tell you what's involved.

The OP has spoken of a north end and south end of the HOA being at loggerheads. She has indicated that one end has residents who want their property annexed by "the border city." North Carolina's annexation statute does not seem to preclude this possibility. All that is needed is that all the owners of land that is contiguous to the city's boundaries would have to sign a petition.

According to the layperson's friend Wikipedia, annexation in the past nationwide has taken some very odd geographical shapes indeed. For example, it appears that, if just one lot on the one end seeking annexation is contiguous to the city boundary, and then lot-by-lot all other lots would be contiguous, then I think a case for annexation is possible.

I agree this needs to go to an attorney. All this forum can do is maybe help the OP prepare for a meeting with an attorney.

In theory, the end result would be a HOA whose governing documents would perhaps have to be revised to show that one end of the HOA is located in City X and the other end is located in Township Y. I do not see how this would change the restrictive covenants in any meaningful way.

Road maintenance seems addressable. In theory, City X could be responsible for the roads up to point ___ and no further.

Then again, it's common for OPs here to disregard the suggestions made. Perhaps because the suggestions are overwhelming to anyone new to land law. Maybe because OPs are asked to learn to fish instead of just being given fish. It's their choice.

This is discussed a lot on the net, but I admit I am struggling some to get clarity. Some of the reasons a city may want to annex land:

-- Ensure growth is planned. This results in more efficiency in planning for and delivering infrastructure-related services.

-- Subject the land (to be annexed) to the city's standards, thus raising property values, thus raising revenues due to increased income from taxes on the annexed land. Why not have more taxpayers to help pay for the fire department, police department, et cetera?

-- See https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/6/11/when-is-it-okay-to-annex-property

There are successful movements to de-annex as well.

In the OP's case, I admit the reasons the border city would want to agree to annex part of the land on which the HOA sits are not clear to me.

Maybe one of the important questions to ask is has this city annexed land in the recent past? If so, perhaps this is a sign that the city would be open to annexing at least part of the land on which the HOA sits.

I am ready to bet this thread is an academic exercise.

Thank you all for your comments. This is a complex situation but we are moving forward. It has a lot to do with 3 townships on a 26 mile island and 1 is poorly run. We received federal funding for beach nourishment project but our town is passing because of so much mismanagement. Things most would not believe. The town we are petitioning is going to be involved with providing us direction. Our State Represetives are willing to help, so now it's up to us to get it done. I like the last idea however, if we cannot get 90% of our HOA to agree to annexation (we are currently at 80%) then we may need to split the HOA. This is about to get very interesting!

From North Carolina statute G. S. § 47F-2-118, if this HOA was formed after January 1, 1999, then:
"Except in the case of taking of all the lots by eminent domain (G.S. 47F-1-107), a
planned community may be terminated only by agreement of lot owners of lots to which at
least eighty percent (80%) of the votes in the association are allocated, or any larger percentage
the declaration specifies. The declaration may specify a smaller percentage only if all of the lots
in the planned community are restricted exclusively to nonresidential uses."

https://www.ncleg.gov/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/BySection/Chapter_47F/GS_47F-2-118.pdf

The NC Condo Act says similar for all condos formed after October 1, 1986:
"§ 47C-2-118. Termination of condominium.
(a) Except in the case of a taking of all the units by eminent domain (G.S.
47C-1-107), a condominium may be terminated only by agreement of unit owners of units
to which at least eighty percent (80%) of the votes in the association are allocated, or any
larger percentage the declaration specifies. The declaration may specify a smaller
percentage only if all of the units in the condominium are restricted exclusively to
nonresidential uses."

If KellyG8's HOA/condo meets the above requirements, then it appears her 80% are at least partly headed in the right direction towards annexation.

We were incorporated in 1991.

KellyG8, is this a condominium?

North Carolina statute G.S. 47-F-102 states that 47F-2-117 applies to both pre-1999 and post Jan 1, 1999 North Carolina HOAs. Many sites say that 47F-2-117 says only 67% is required.

More discussion:
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-2-217(a), which, with the exception addressed below, is now applicable to all planned communities, provides that "the declaration may be amended only by affirmative vote or written agreement signed by lot owners of lots to which at least sixty-seven percent (67%) of the votes in the association are allocated, or any larger majority the declaration specifies." The association's declaration may require a higher level of member approval, but the minimum level of member approval in a residential community is 67%.

There is a catch. While N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-2-217 now applies to pre-1999 communities, it does not if "the articles of incorporation or the declaration expressly provides to the contrary." Unfortunately, the meaning of this phrase has created potential problems for pre-1999 communities. For example, if a pre-1999 community's declaration contains a clear and unambiguous provision providing that a mere majority of all members can amend the declaration, the provision in the declaration should control over N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-2-217(a). If, however, the declaration contains ambiguous language regarding amendments, such as "all actions taken by Members shall be by majority vote," it is unclear whether this is a sufficiently "express provision" to override the 67% approval floor set out in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-2-217(a).

The amendment applying N.C. Gen. Stat. § 47F-2-217 to pre-1999 communities is new and has not yet been interpreted by a North Carolina appellate court. Until that time, planned communities without clear amendment provisions in their declarations should consider taking the conservative approach and complying with the Act.

More at https://www.wardandsmith.com/blog/some-but-not-all-how-the-north-carolina-planned-community-act-affects-pre-1999-planned-communities

Skim it. Go see an attorney.