Weaverville Partners, LLC v. Town of Weaverville Zoning Board of Adjustment, 188 N.C. App. 55, 654 S.E.2d 784 (2008)

The plaintiff challenged the denial of a special use permit for a 90 unit apartment complex proposed for a twelve acre site. The site was adjacent to a commercial strip on one side and across the street from a 24-unit apartment building, with single family residential development on the remaining sides of the site. At the hearing on the permit application, the plaintiff presented testimony from a project engineer, traffic engineer, and real estate appraiser. Neighbors testified in opposition. The board denied the permit based upon a finding the access road for the project would create traffic problems for pedestrians and vehicles and that the project would substantially harm neighboring property values. The trial court reversed, conducting: (1) a de novo review to hold the plaintiff had submitted a prima facie case of compliance with the ordinance standards and the rebutting evidence to the contrary was not competent, substantial, or material evidence as a matter of law the denial unsupported by sufficient evidence, and (2) a whole record review to determine that the board’s findings were not supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence.

The court held the proper standards of review had been employed and correctly applied. The plaintiff presented credible quantitative evidence as to each standard while the rebuttal testimony was held to be largely speculative and non-expert opinion. On traffic, the plaintiff’s traffic engineer produced trip generation data, related this to the town road plans, and described measures for minimizing congestion. The opposing testimony from neighbors was characterized as speculative lay opinions unsupported by mathematical studies or a factual basis. On property values, the plaintiff’s real estate appraiser conducted a market analysis of similarly situated neighborhoods in the town, reviewed sales histories around the site, conducted interviews with nearby purchasers, and reviewed the architectural plans. The opposing testimony from neighbors looked at countywide data regarding the effect of apartments on depressing rates of property value appreciation and whether nearby sales were less than the asking price. The court held this did not establish violation of the ordinance standard of substantial depreciation of value. The court held testimony presenting reports of crime rates near apartment complexes in out-of-state cities without any factual relation to this project constituted speculative opinions and generalized fears that could not support permit denial. Likewise, testimony regarding the incongruity of the project design with neighboring properties was based solely on personal observations and had no quantitative link to a substantial depreciation in property values.