Appeals Court rejects Charlotte’s request to give rezoning case more value as precedent

Charlotte, N.C. skyline and Bank of America headquarters building. Source: WikiCommons.
  • The N.C. Court of Appeals has denied Charlotte's request to give more precedential value to a recent decision in a rezoning dispute.
  • The unanimous opinion in Mozeley v. Charlotte will remain "unpublished." Court rules discourage attorneys from relying on arguments made in unpublished opinions.

The N.C. Court of Appeals has denied Charlotte’s request to “publish” a recent decision in a rezoning dispute. Publication would have allowed the case to be used as a precedent in future state court proceedings.

The court issued its denial without comment Tuesday.

The Appeals Court released a unanimous unpublished opinion in Mozeley v. City of Charlotte on Aug. 16.

“The Mozeley opinion has significant value as legal precedent” in multiple ways, according to a motion filed Aug. 25 by Thomas Powers, Charlotte’s senior assistant city attorney.

Plaintiff Steven Mozeley objected in 2020 to Charlotte’s rezoning of an 80-acre plot next to his property, a single-family home on 15 acres of land. The rezoning would have changed the neighboring plot’s maximum development from 240 single-family homes to 280 single-family, attached townhomes, according to court records.

Charlotte City Council approved the rezoning in an online WebEx meeting. When Mozeley challenged the decision in court, his complaint included an argument that the city had violated its procedures for online meetings.

A trial judge ruled against Mozeley in May 2021. The Appeals Court’s unpublished opinion followed suit.

Charlotte’s request for publication of the opinion cited the Appeals Court’s analysis of the city’s online rezoning vote.

City officials “could not find another North Carolina opinion addressing the requirements of open meetings laws when a governmental agency uses a video-conferencing platform (i.e., WebEx, Zoom, Microsoft Teams) to conduct public business,” Powers wrote. “This opinion provides exceptional guidance that the ‘remote meetings’ law does not require the governmental agency to be able to see or have information as to the number of person[s] viewing online or to be aware of the size, scope, and intensity.”

Charlotte also highlighted the Mozeley decision’s approach to the plaintiff’s “novel theory” about illegal spot zoning. “This opinion, as precedent, will guide future interactions between local governments and complaining parties over a rezoning that includes an option-to-purchase,” Powers wrote.

The case helped Charlotte demonstrate that it did not make a zoning decision in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner, Powers explained. Charlotte also believed the Mozeley case offered value as a precedent for future cases in which a plaintiff might claim violations of the right to due process.

Appeals Court judges decide whether to publish an opinion or leave it unpublished.

“In order to minimize the cost of publication and of providing storage space for the published reports, the Court of Appeals is not required to publish an opinion in every decided case,” according to court Rule 30(e). “If the panel that hears the case determines that the appeal involves no new legal principles and that an opinion, if published, would have no value as a precedent, it may direct that no opinion be published.”

“An unpublished decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals does not constitute controlling legal authority,” the rule states. “Accordingly, citation of unpublished opinions in briefs, memoranda, and oral arguments in the trial and appellate divisions is disfavored.”

Judge Jefferson Griffin wrote the opinion in Mozeley v. City of Charlotte. Judges Richard Dietz and Lucy Inman also served on the three-judge panel. Dietz and Inman are running against each other this fall for an open seat on the N.C. Supreme Court.