Ambiguity in Land-Use Ordinances Resolved for Free Use of Property

Introduction

Schooldev East, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest, decided December 13, 2024 by the Supreme Court of North Carolina, addressed whether the Town could deny subdivision and site-plan permits for a proposed charter school based on an ambiguous pedestrian/bicycle connectivity requirement in its Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). Petitioner Schooldev East sought permits to subdivide land and build a charter school on a 35-acre parcel in Wake Forest’s rural holding district (RD). The Town’s Board of Commissioners (BOC) denied the applications under UDO § 3.7.5(A)–(B)(2), citing lack of “connectivity to surrounding residential areas.” Schooldev challenged those denials in superior court and on appeal, arguing (1) that the statutory enabling act preempted off-site infrastructure mandates and (2) that its evidence satisfied the UDO. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted discretionary review to resolve (a) how ambiguous land-use provisions must be construed and (b) whether Schooldev’s evidence met its initial burden of production.

Summary of the Judgment

Writing for a unanimous Court (except as noted in a dissent), Justice Allen reversed the Court of Appeals. Key holdings:

The superior court should have applied de novo review to determine if Schooldev submitted “competent, material, and substantial evidence” to meet its initial burden of production. Whole-record review was inappropriate for that legal question.
UDO § 3.7.5’s requirement of “connectivity to surrounding residential areas” is ambiguous as to whether it demands connections to all neighborhoods encircling the site. Under North Carolina’s public‐policy canon favoring the free and unrestricted use of land, ambiguities in land-use ordinances must be resolved in favor of the property owner.
Schooldev’s unchallenged evidence of a ten-foot-wide multi-use path along Harris Road—providing pedestrian/bicycle access to both a public park and a future 273-home subdivision—constituted competent, material, and substantial evidence of compliance with UDO § 3.7.5.
No contrary evidence supported the BOC’s denials. The Court therefore directed Wake Forest to approve the subdivision and site-plan applications, reversing the lower courts.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Kirby v. N.C. Dep’t of Transp. (368 N.C. 847 (2016)): Articulates North Carolina’s policy favoring “free and unrestricted use and enjoyment of land.”
Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjustment (354 N.C. 298 (2001)): Holds that “well‐founded doubts” in ordinance interpretation must be resolved to permit land use.
PHG Asheville, LLC v. City of Asheville (374 N.C. 133 (2020)): Clarifies standards for judicial review of quasi-judicial land-use board decisions and the distinction between de novo review of legal issues and whole-record review of factual support.
Humble Oil & Refin. Co. v. Board of Aldermen (284 N.C. 458 (1974)): Establishes that a permit applicant’s initial burden is to produce “competent, material, and substantial evidence” of compliance with ordinance requirements.

2. Legal Reasoning

The Court’s reasoning unfolded in three steps:

a. Standard of Review
The initial question—whether Schooldev offered sufficient evidence to meet its prima facie burden—is a question of law and requires de novo review. Only the subsequent question (whether the board’s contrary findings are supported by substantial evidence) merits whole-record review. Because the superior court applied whole-record review to the legal question, its analysis was erroneous.

b. Interpretation of UDO § 3.7.5
The connectivity provision reads in part:

“Connectivity (vehicular and pedestrian) to surrounding residential areas is required. Where a full vehicular connection is impractical, a multi‐use trail connection shall be provided.”

The Court found this language unclear as to whether “surrounding” required connections to every encircling subdivision or simply to one or more adjacent neighborhoods. Under North Carolina’s long‐standing public policy and precedents (Yancey, Westminster), ambiguous land‐use provisions must be construed in favor of the free use of property. Reading § 3.7.5(B)(2) in that light, the Court held the provision did not compel connectivity to every residential area around the site.

c. Schooldev’s Evidence
At the quasi-judicial hearing, Schooldev introduced a site plan demonstrating a ten-foot‐wide multi-use path along the site’s entire Harris Road frontage. That path linked the proposed charter school parcel to an existing network at Joyner Park and to a future residential subdivision across the road. No one offered evidence to the contrary. The Court concluded this unchallenged showing was competent, material, and substantial evidence satisfying the UDO requirement once properly construed.

3. Impact on Future Cases and Land-Use Law

Reaffirms and sharpened the distinction between de novo review of legal questions (e.g., prima facie burdens) and whole-record review of factual support.
Clarifies that any “well-founded doubts” in local land-use ordinances must be resolved in favor of the property owner’s right to use land freely, placing the onus on municipalities to draft clear provisions.
Limits local governments’ ability to deny permits based solely on ambiguous ordinance language or unsupported findings, thereby encouraging more precise ordinance‐ drafting and more rigorous evidentiary hearings.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Quasi-Judicial Decision: When a planning board or commissioners apply ordinance rules to a specific project (as opposed to adopting or changing the rules).
Prima Facie Burden of Production: The initial requirement for a permit applicant to present enough relevant, admissible evidence that a reasonable mind could accept as adequate under the ordinance.
Competent, Material, and Substantial Evidence:
- Competent: Legally admissible (e.g., expert testimony, plans).
- Material: Logically connected to the ordinance standard.
- Substantial: More than a mere scintilla—enough that a reasonable fact-finder could rely on it.
“Free Use of Land” Canon: If an ordinance provision is genuinely unclear, courts interpret it to allow, not restrict, the property owner’s proposed use.

Conclusion

Schooldev East, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest stands as a landmark in North Carolina land-use law. It underscores that:

Local governments must draft unambiguous ordinance provisions if they intend to place meaningful restraints on property use.
Courts will apply de novo review to the threshold legal question of whether a permit applicant has met its initial evidentiary burden.
Ambiguities in land-use ordinances are resolved in favor of the free and unrestricted use of land, consistent with the State’s strong public-policy commitment to property rights.

As a result, municipalities should revisit and refine their development ordinances to ensure clarity in connectivity, infrastructure requirements, and other land-use standards, lest they inadvertently grant property owners greater rights than intended.