AG 1998 08 17 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in Mecklenburg County (many of which have been approved and are developed or under development), and 1,070 are in Cabarrus County (which constitute the final phase of the PUD, and are the subject of this petition). Pursuant to that approval the petitioner has incurred substantial expense planning and installing utility systems throughout the PUD, and pro-rated these and other substantial capital expenses, incurred to the sale of all of the homesites (developed and undeveloped) in anticipation that the entire PUD would be developed in a timely manner. As a result of these actions, the petitioner will suffer substantial damage if approval of its plat is denied or delayed on the basis of the County's "adequate public facilities" ordinance. These damages are set forth in detail in Exhibit A, attached hereto. The petitioner contends that it has acquired a "vested fight" to complete its development and recover its costs and anticipated profits under principles established by statutory and common law in North Carolina. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-3~.~. provides that "to ensure reasonable certainty, stability and fairness in the land-use planning process, (and) secure the reasonable expectations of landowners," it is the "public policy" of this state to .establish "vested rights" under certain conditions for PUD's and other phased development plans. That statute defines a "vested right" as "the fight to undertake and complete the development and use of property under the terms and conditions of... an approved phased development plan." Under common law, our courts have also recognized such fights where developers have iricurred substantial expenditures in good faith in reasonable reliance upon zoning or other decisions made by regulatory authorities. See Browning-Ferris Inqlu,tries of South Atlanta. Inc..v. Guilford Count3, Board of ..A. d_iustment, 126 N.C. App. 168'(1997), Sim0son v. City of Charlotte, 115 N.C. App. 5I (1994), In re Campsites Unlimited, Inc., 287 N.C. 493 (1975) and Town of Hillsborough v. Smith, 276 N.C. 48 (1969).