Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/2011

Home

December 10, 2010 Volume 4 No. 23 Zoning Bulletin "(1) substantial expenditures; (2) in good faith reliance; (3) on valid governmental approval; (4) resulting in the party's detriment." The Dealerships maintained that they acted in reliance on "valid governmental approval" and made substantial expenditures in reli- ance on that approval. The Dealerships claimed that the original GB zoning was sufficient governmental approval to give rise to a vested right when they made substantial expenditures in reliance on that zoning. The court disagreed. It said that: "[O]ne does not acquire a vested right to build, contrary to the provisions of a subsequent- ly enacted zoning ordinance, by the mere purchase of land in good faith with the intent of so building thereon ...." Therefore, the fact that the Dealerships purchased the Property in good faith reliance on the GB zoning was not sufficient to give rise to a vested right. The court explained that a party could acquire a vested right to build when the party, relying on required and obtained permits other than a building permit, makes substantial expenditures in reliance on the per- mit. Here, the Dealerships were required to obtain various permits (i.e., zoning, grading, erosion, and architectural compliance permits) but did not obtain any of those permits prior to making those expenditures. Since the Dealerships expenditures were not in reliance on any permits required to proceed with the auto park, the court concluded that no common law vested right to complete the auto park arose. See also: Town of Hillsborough v. Smith, 276 N.C. 48, 170 S.E.2d 904, 49 A.L.R.3d 1 (1969). See also: Browning- Ferris Industries Of South Atlantic, Inc. v. Guil- ford County Bd. of Adjustment, 126 N.C. App. 168, 484 S.E.2d 411 (1997). Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that: "A vested right can arise, however, if `a property owner makes expendi- tures in the absence of zoning' or without governmental ap- proval when, at the time of the expenditures, no prior approv- al was required." Case Note: The Dealerships had argued that governmental ap- proval other than a permit could give rise to a vested interest. They pointed to two letters sent by the town's planning depart- ment as proof of governmental approval that gave rise to their vested interest in the auto park. A June 28, 2001 letter (the "June Letter ") from the town's Code Enforcement Officer (the "CEO ") explained that a car dealership could be located in the 8 © 2010 Thomson Reuters