Blue Ridge Co., L.L.C. v. Town of Pineville
| Decision Date | 05 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. COA07-206.,COA07-206. |
| Citation | 655 S.E.2d 843 |
| Parties | BLUE RIDGE COMPANY, L.L.C., Petitioner, v. The TOWN OF PINEVILLE, North Carolina, Respondent. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
The Town of Pineville ("respondent") appeals from an order reversing respondent's denial of a subdivision application from Blue Ridge Company, L.L.C. ("petitioner"). Petitioner appeals the trial court's order to remand for a new hearing. We affirm.
Petitioner owns 52.43 acres of undeveloped land in Mecklenburg County, in the Town of Pineville, North Carolina ("the property"). The property is adjacent to Lakeview Drive, the main street in a residential neighborhood of about fifty homes ("Lakeview Neighborhood") and the only means of access to the property. The property is zoned R-12. Petitioner applied to the Pineville Planning Board ("Planning Board") for approval of a 102 lot residential subdivision ("Netherby Subdivision").
Petitioner began the application process in August 2005 by submitting a sketch plan to the Planning Board which was approved on 22 September 2005. A preliminary plan was submitted in December 2005. Petitioner revised the preliminary plan twice in response to comments from respondent's staff. On 25 May 2006, the Planning Board unanimously denied the application.
Petitioner appealed the Planning Board's decision to the Town Council. The Town Council held a hearing, found that petitioner did not meet the requirements of the Town of Pineville Subdivision Ordinance section 6.150 ("section 6.150"), and denied the application. The Town Council based their denial on traffic and overcrowding of schools and noted that petitioner failed to show that additional students would not adversely affect the stability, environment, health and character of the neighboring area. Petitioner otherwise complied with the technical and safety requirements for subdivision plans.
Petitioner appealed to Mecklenburg County Superior Court for a writ of certiorari, pursuant to N.C. Gen.Stat. § 160A-381 (). Petitioner argued that denial of its subdivision plan was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.
On 15 December 2006, Mecklenburg County Superior Court Judge Richard Boner found that petitioner complied with the objective technical and engineering standards set forth by respondent and denial of the petition was based on subjective requirements which did not provide petitioner with sufficient notice of what respondent expected. The trial court reversed the Town Council's denial of petitioner's application and remanded for a new hearing with respondent. In addition, the court ordered respondent to provide petitioner with any plans in existence at the time the application was filed for public facilities required for the subdivision and specific criteria regarding the environmental, health, and character of neighboring areas considered by the Town Council in determining whether the proposed subdivision complies with section 6.150.
Respondent appeals the trial court's order on the basis that respondent's decision to deny the subdivision was supported by competent, material and substantial evidence; the ordinance requirements are lawful and were lawfully applied; and respondent is under no obligation to instruct subdivision applicants before a hearing as to what and how they should present their application. Petitioner appeals on the basis that the subdivision plan should be approved without remanding for a new hearing.
Appellate courts exercise review (1) to determine whether the trial court exercised the appropriate scope of review, and (2) if appropriate, deciding whether the court did so properly. Tate Terrace Realty Investors, Inc. v. Currituck County, 127 N.C.App. 212, 219, 488 S.E.2d 845, 849 (1997) (citation omitted); Sun Suites Holdings, LLC v. Board of Aldermen of Town of Garner, 139 N.C.App. 269, 273, 533 S.E.2d 525, 528 (2000). The superior court judge sits as an appellate court on review pursuant to writ of certiorari of an administrative decision. Batch v. Town of Chapel Hill, 326 N.C. 1, 11, 387 S.E.2d 655, 662 (1990); Sun Suites Holdings, 139 N.C.App. at 271, 533 S.E.2d at 527. If petitioner appeals the Town's decision on the basis of an error of law, the trial court applies de novo review; if the petitioner alleges the decision was arbitrary and capricious, or challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court applies the whole record test. Guilford Fin. Servs., LLC v. City of Brevard, 150 N.C.App. 1, 11, 563 S.E.2d 27, 34 (2002) (Tyson, J., concurring and dissenting), rev'd and dissent adopted by, 356 N.C. 655, 656, 576 S.E.2d 325, 326 (2003); Sun Suites Holdings, 139 N.C.App. at 272, 533 S.E.2d at 527-28. If the trial court applies the whole record test, then the Town's findings of fact are binding on appeal if supported by substantial, competent evidence presented at the hearing. Tate Terrace Realty, 127 N.C.App. at 218, 488 S.E.2d at 849. The superior court may apply both standards of review if required, but the standards should be applied separately to discrete issues. Sun Suites Holdings, 139 N.C.App. at 273-74, 533 S.E.2d at 528.
Petitioner challenges the Town Council's decision as vague, arbitrary and capricious, unsupported by the record and claims the ordinance is void as a matter of law. The superior court determined that petitioner presented substantial evidence to support a finding that petitioner met the technical requirements for a subdivision plan, and the plan should have been approved. The superior court concluded that denial of the application was not supported by law because the subjective requirements did not give petitioner notice of the Town Council's expectations for compliance.
The trial court applied the whole record test to the challenged findings and de novo review of the Town Council's ordinance. The trial court reviewed the evidence to determine petitioner met the technical requirements of the ordinance and reviewed de novo the legality of the general requirements. Therefore, we conclude the trial court conducted the proper scope of review. Sun Suites Holdings, 139 N.C.App. at 273-74, 533 S.E.2d at 528.
First, we examine whether the trial court erred in reversing the Town Council's decision. Respondent argues its decision to deny petitioner's subdivision application was supported by competent, material and substantial evidence and should have been affirmed. We disagree.
"In reviewing a superior court order entered upon review of a zoning decision by a municipality, the appellate court must determine ... whether the evidence before the Town Council supported the Council's action." William Brewster Co. v. Town of Huntersville, 161 N.C.App. 132, 134, 588 S.E.2d 16, 19 (2003) (internal quotation and citation omitted).
The Town Council denied petitioner's subdivision application on the basis it did not comply with general requirements outlined in the Town of Pineville, Subdivision Ordinance 6.150. The pertinent portions of section 6.150 are as follows:
Subdivision Ordinance
6.150. General Requirements
1. Consistency with adopted public plan and policies. All subdivisions of land approved under these regulations should be consistent with the most recently adopted public plans and policies for the area in which it is located. This includes general policy regarding development objectives for the area as well as specific policy or plans for public facilities such as streets, parks and open space, schools, and other similar facilities. Plans and policies for the community are on file in the offices of the Secretary to the Pineville Planning Board and in the offices of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Commission.
2. Conformity. All proposed subdivisions should be planned so as to facilitate the most advantageous development of the entire neighboring area. In areas with existing development, new subdivisions should be planned so as to protect and enhance the stability, environment, health and character of the neighboring area....
Specifically, the Town Council found that the access route utilizing Lakeview Drive would add 1000 trips per day, increasing current traffic on that road by thirty percent, that homeowners and their children use the streets and sidewalks for bike riding and other recreational activities, that the Lakeview Neighborhood would triple in size from the construction of the Netherby Subdivision, that petitioner did not submit evidence as to the impact of the Netherby Subdivision on neighborhood schools, and that the "Netherby Subdivision does not protect the Lakeview Neighborhood from non-compatible encroachment."
When a subdivision ordinance requires several criteria for approval of a plan, failure to meet one requirement is a sufficient basis to deny approval. Howard v. City of Kinston, 148 N.C.App. 238, 245-46, 558 S.E.2d 221, 227 (2002) () (citation omitted). In order to determine whether petitioner failed to meet any of the requirements, it is necessary to examine each one.
Petitioner contends the Town Council's denial of the application based on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hampton v. Cumberland Cnty.
...of review if required, but the standards should be applied separately to discrete issues." Blue Ridge Co., L.L.C. v. Town of Pineville , 188 N.C. App. 466, 470-71, 655 S.E.2d 843, 846 (2008) (citing Sun Suites Holdings, LLC v. Bd. of Aldermen of Town of Garner , 139 N.C. App. 269, 273-74, 5......
-
Premier Plastic Surgery Ctr. v. the Bd. of Adjustment For the Town of Matthews
...or challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, the trial court applies the whole record test.” Blue Ridge Co. v. Town of Pineville, 188 N.C.App. 466, 469, 655 S.E.2d 843, 845–46, disc. review denied, 362 N.C. 679, 669 S.E.2d 742 (2008). “[A]n appellate court's obligation to review a superio......
-
Bojangles' Rests. Inc. v. Town of Pineville
...an awning in violation of the Ordinance. Bojangles leases approximately .86 acres of property located at 8720 Pineville-Matthews Road in Pineville (the "Property"). The Property is zoned in the B-4 district and contains a single building from which Bojangles operates a fast food restaurant ......
- Bluejack Enter.s LLC v. Town Of Edenton, COA10-171