Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/31/2013 - Special

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2012 I Volume 6 I Issue 19 Validity of oning Regulations— County's adequate public facilities ordinance effectively conditions residential development approval on fee payment Developer challenges ordinance, arguing county lacked authority to adopt ordinance pursuant to its general zoning powers Citation: Lanvale Properties, LLC v. County of Cabarrus, 2012 WL 3854857 WC. 2012) NORTH CAROLINA (08/24/12)—This case addressed the issue of whether a county in North Carolina had the authority, pursuant to its general zoning powers, or, in the alternative, a 2004 law enacted by the General As- sembly, to adopt an adequate public facilities ordinance ("APFO") that ef- fectively conditioned approval of new residential construction projects on developers paying a fee to subsidize new school construction to prevent over- crowding in the county's public schools. The Background/Facts: Concerned about the effect of explosive popula- tion growth on its ability to provide adequate public facilities for its citizens, the Cabarrus County Board of Commissioners (the "Board") adopted an initial APFO in January 1998. On August 20, 2007 the Board adopted a revised APFO. The revised APFO was added as a new chapter to the zoning ordinance of Cabarrus County (the "County"). The APFO effectively linked residential development approval to the availability of space for students in the County's public schools. Under the APFO, if there was sufficient unused student capa- city to support a proposed development, the Board was required to approve the development without additional APFO conditions. However, if available student capacity was insufficient to support the development, the Board could either deny the developer's application or approve it subject to several "condi- tions that reduce[d] or mitigate[d] the impacts of the proposed development." Included among those conditions was: entering into a consent agreement involving a monetary contribution; the donation of land; or construction of a school.. In practice, those referenced "monetary contributions" were adequate public facilities fees, which became known as "voluntary mitigation pay- ments" ("VMPs"). In 2008 the Board increased the VMP to: $8,617.00 per single family unit; $4,571.00 per townhouse; and $4,153.00 per multifamily unit. Lanvale Properties, LLC ("Lanvale") planned to construct a residential development on fifty-four acres located within the territorial jurisdiction of the City of Locust ("Locust"). Most of that site was in the County. Lanvale al- leged that the County refused to issue a building permit for its development until it complied with the APFO. On April 4, 2008, Lanvale filed a declaratory © 2012 Thomson Reuters 7