Preview:

An  unpublished  opinion  of  the  North  Carolina  Court  of  Appeals  does  not  constitute
controlling legal authority. Citation is disfavored, but may be permitted in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 30(e)(3) of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure.
NO. COA03-1323
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed:                                                                                          7 December  2004
BEAU RIVAGE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, a North Carolina
non-profit corporation, BRIAN
HODSHON and wife, CARY
HODSHON, SHELBY COVINGTON,
THOMAS RICE, GEORGE MILLER
and wife, EILEEN MILLER,
HUGH VAN ZELM and wife,
SHEILA VAN ZELM, and ANN
BOSEMAN,
Petitioners,
v.                                                                                              New Hanover County
No.  02 CVS  2482 and
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH                                                                       No.  02 CVS  2483
CAROLINA, and THEODORE DAVIS,
ROBERT GREER, WILLIAM
CASTER, NANCY PRITCHETT, and
JULIA BOSEMAN, New Hanover
County Commissioners,
Respondents,
and
BILLY EARL, LLC, a North
Carolina limited liability
company, CAROLINA GREEN
ESTATES, LLC, a North
Carolina limited liability
company, and BEAU RIVAGE
PLANTATION, INC., a North
Carolina corporation,
Intervenor-
Respondents.




-2-
Appeal by petitioners from judgment entered  31 March  2003 by
Judge  Jay  D.  Hockenbury  in  New  Hanover  County  Superior  Court.
Heard in the Court of Appeals  26 August  2004.
Susan McDaniel Keelin and Stevens, McGhee, Morgan, Lennon, &
Toll,  L.L.P.,  by  Richard  M.  Morgan,  Mark  F.  Carter,  for
petitioner-appellants.
David C. Barefoot and The Law Office of Kenneth A. Shanklin,
by   Kenneth   A.   Shanklin   and   Matthew   A.   Nichols,   for
intervenor-respondents  Billy  Earl,  LLC  and  Carolina  Green
Estates, LLC.
Wessell & Raney, by John C. Wessell for intervenor-respondent
Beau Rivage Plantation, Inc.
E.  Holt  Moore,  III,  Assistant  County  Attorney,  for  all
respondent-appellees.
ELMORE, Judge.
This appeal concerns the interpretation of New Hanover County
Subdivision Regulations addressing who may appeal a decision of the
New Hanover County Planning Board Technical Review Committee (TRC)
to the Board of County Commissioners.    The Beau Rivage Homeowners
Association  and  the  named  individual  homeowners                       (petitioners)
contend  that  the  regulations  permit  aggrieved  parties,  such  as
adjacent property owners, to appeal the approval of a subdivision
plan.                                                                      Billy   Earl,   LLC,   and   Carolina   Green   Estates,   LLC
(intervenor-respondents)  argue  that  the  plain  language  of  the
regulations  allow  appeal  only  by  the  applicant-subdivider.    This
Court   recently   addressed   the   very   same   issue,   the   proper
construction of New Hanover County Subdivision Regulations Section
32-3(2), in Sanco of Wilmington Service Corporation v. New Hanover




-3-
County,  ___  N.C.  App.  ___,  ___,  ___  S.E.2d  ___,  ___  (2004).    In
Sanco,  we  agreed  with  the  reasoning  of  the  trial  court  that  the
plain  language  of  the  ordinance  did  not  provide  for  an  appeal
process by third parties.    We recognized that under the ordinance
at issue in Sanco, the local government had only a ministerial role
in plat approval.   It followed from this conclusion that the Board
of Commissioners lacked the authority to consider an “appeal” by a
third party challenging the approval of the applicant’s plat.    We
affirm  in  the  instant  case  on  the  reasoning  that  supported  our
decision in Sanco.
We  briefly  recite  the  relevant  background  of  petitioners’
appeal.   The TRC approved the Carolina Green Preliminary Site Plan
and the Updated Beau Rivage Plantation Preliminary Site Plan on 13
March                                                                         2002  and   10  April                                               2002,  respectively.    On   19  April      2002,
                                                                                          petitioner   Beau   Rivage   Homeowners   Association                                (Homeowner’s
Association)   appealed   the   TRC’s   decisions   to   the   Board   of
Commissioners.   The Board held hearings on these appeals in May of
2002 and voted to affirm the TRC’s decisions approving both plans.
Petitioners appealed the Board’s decision to the superior court for
review by writ of certiorari.   After reviewing the file and hearing
oral argument, the court issued its order on 31 March 2003.   In the
findings of fact, the court referenced its recent decision in the
Sanco case reviewing the very same subdivision regulations:
11. On September 5, 2002, during the same term
of  Court,  in  Sanco  of  Wilmington  Service  v.
New  Hanover  County  and  New  Hanover  County
Board of Commissioners  (File No.  01 CVS  4667,
New Hanover County Superior Court), this Court
interpreted  these  same  County  ordinances  and




-4-
subdivision   regulations   in   dismissing   the
appeal of third parties from a TRC decision to
the   Board   of   County   Commissioners   in   a
proceeding   involving   a   County   performance
residential development.
In  accord  with  its  previous  ruling,  the  court  concluded  that
petitioners  had  no  right  under  the  regulations  to  appeal  TRC
decisions  to  the  Board  of  Commissioners.    The  court  declared  the
actions   of   the   Board   in   hearing   the   appeal   of   petitioner
Homeowner’s  Association  null  and  void;  dismissed  petitioners’
certiorari  appeal  for  lack  of  standing;  reinstated  the  TRC
approval; and remanded to the TRC to continue with the subdivision
process as previously approved by the TRC on  10 April  2002.    From
this  order  dismissing  for  lack  of  subject  matter  jurisdiction,
petitioners appeal.
The proper construction of an ordinance is a question of law
requiring a de novo standard of review.   Capricorn Equity Corp. v.
Town of Chapel Hill, 334 N.C. 132, 137, 431 S.E.2d 183, 187 (1993).
Thus,  as  petitioners’  assignments  of  error  challenge  the  proper
interpretation  of  the  Subdivision  Regulations  of  the  New  Hanover
County Zoning Ordinance, we review the decision of the trial court
de  novo.     Petitioners  contend  that  the  trial  court  erred  in
concluding that Section 32-3(2) did not allow anyone other than the
applicant-subdivider  to  appeal  a  decision  of  the  TRC.                 The
applicable version of this section reads as follows:
(2)  Upon  completion  of  the  preliminary  plat
review,  the  Planning  Board  shall  approve  or
disapprove the plat.
(a) If the preliminary plat is approved,
the approval shall be noted on the sepia.




-5-
One   print   of   the   plat   shall   be
transmitted  to  the  subdivider  and  the
sepia  shall  be  retained  by  the  Planning
Department.
(b)    When    a    preliminary    plat    is
disapproved,   the   Planning   Department
shall specify the reasons for such action
in writing. One copy of such reasons and
the   sepia   shall   be   retained   by   the
Planning  Department  and  a  print  of  the
plat  with  the  reasons  for  disapproval
shall be given to the subdivider. If the
preliminary   plat   is   disapproved,   the
subdivider   may   make   the   recommended
changes and submit a revised preliminary
plat.
(c)   Decisions   of   the   Planning   Board
Chairperson may be appealed to the Board
of  County  Commissioners  at  which  time
they  may  affirm,  modify,  supplement,  or
remand the decision of the Planning Board
Chairperson.
A  careful  reading  of  the  language  of  the  ordinance  and
regulations  compels  the  conclusion  that  adjacent  property  owners
are not permitted to participate in the process of appealing to the
Board of Commissioners.   As in Sanco, we agree with the trial court
that  the  ordinance  does  not  grant  a  right  to  third  parties  to
participate in the subdivision approval process.    The New Hanover
County subdivision approval process is a ministerial, rather than
a  quasi-judicial,  process.    See  Sanco,  ___  N.C.  App.  at  ___,  ___
S.E.2d  at  ___;  see  also  Nazziola  v.  Landcraft  Props.,  Inc.,  143
N.C.  App.  564,  566-67,  545  S.E.2d  801,  803  (2001)  (a  subdivision
approval   process   which   does   not   grant   discretion   to   the
governmental  board  to  hear  an  appeal  from  a  party  other  than  the
applicant  is  ministerial).     Because  the  subdivision  approval
process under the ordinance in the instant case is ministerial, the




-6-
Board  of  Commissioners  was  without  the  authority  to  consider  an
appeal by a party other than the applicants.   Sanco, ___ N.C. App.
at  ___,  ___ S.E.2d at  ___.
Absent  an  express  provision  granting  an  aggrieved  party  the
right  to  appeal  a  decision  approving  an  applicant’s  subdivision
plan,  a  ministerial  scheme  such  as  the  one  here  simply  does  not
allow for a third party appeal to the governmental board.   As this
Court observed in Sanco,  “[t]o read the right to appeal mentioned
in 32 § 3(2)(c) as applying to other parties . . . would require us
to   read   into   the   ordinance   rights   of   and   involvement   by
individuals,  classes,  and  other  third  parties  about  whom  the
ordinance is otherwise silent.”   Id. at ___, ___ S.E.2d at ___.   We
agree with the trial court that petitioner Homeowner’s Association
lacked  standing  to  appeal  the  TRC  decisions.    As  such,  we  affirm
the order of the trial court.
Affirmed.
Judges CALABRIA and STEELMAN concur.
Report per Rule  30(e).

Download 03-1323-5.pdf

South Carolina Law