The N.C. Court of Appeals has overturned a decision by the Huntersville Town Board that denied an application to build a subdivision. In doing so, the court found that the Mecklenburg town’s decision “was not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence… and was arbitrary and capricious.”
In late 2001, the William Brewster Company submitted a sketch plan for a subdivision to be called Riverdale. Brewster’s proposal for Riverdale included 145 houses on a 58.5-acre tract of land. Huntersville’s planning director recommended approving the request because it met all of the technical requirements of the town’s ordinances. He preferred, however, a less dense development on the site.
The town’s board, however, rejected the proposal, ruling that Riverdale would violate the town’s rules on neighborhood consistency and conformity. In essence, the board found that the development would not fit in because it was too dense, compared to other houses in the area. One of those developments had lots three times the size of those in Riverdale. Brewster appealed the town’s decision to Superior Court, and after losing there, to the Court of Appeals.
North Carolina requires that localities approve permit requests if all code requirements are met. Riverdale met the standards of Huntersville’s zoning ordinance, including having a minimum density of no more than 2.5 dwell units per acre and having at least 15 percent open space.
At issue was whether the development met two requirements of the town’s subdivision ordinance. One section requires that new subdivisions be consistent with the most recently adopted public plans and policies for the area. The town found that Riverdale violated such policies. The Court of Appeals noted, however, that the town actually had no approved plans or policies within at least 1.2 miles of Riverdale. Without such plans, the town could not legally reject the development on the basis of consistency.
The town also argued that Riverdale would not be compatible with other houses in the area. The Court of Appeals also rejected this argument, noting that the new subdivision then in the preliminary stages of development did not meet the ordinance’s definition of “existing development.” The town presented no evidence about the character of houses in the area.
“Brewster presented competent, material and substantial evidence that they met the requirements of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances; thus, they established a prima facie case of entitlement to approval,” Judge John Martin wrote or the court. “Because the Town Board did not present substantial evidence contra, the Town Board’s decision to deny the subdivision sketch plan was not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence… and was arbitrary and capricious. The decision of the Superior Court must be reversed, and this matter remanded for entry of an order requiring the town to approve petitioner’s application.”
The case is William Brewster Co. v. Town of Huntersville, (02-1264).
Lowrey is an associate editor at Carolina Journal.