Introduction

The case of Alison Arter v. Orange County, Stephen M. Burt, Sharon C. Burt, Jodi Bakst, and Real Estate Experts (904 S.E.2d 715) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of North Carolina on August 23, 2024, addresses a critical issue in local zoning law— the interpretation of zoning ordinances when textual provisions conflict with tabular guidelines. This commentary examines the background of the dispute, the legal questions presented, and the implications of the court's decision for future zoning interpretations.

Summary of the Judgment

Alison Arter, the appellant, challenged Orange County's interpretation of its zoning ordinances regarding the necessity of land use buffers between properties with identical zoning classifications. Arter contended that a thirty-foot buffer was required between her R-1 zoned property and a new subdivision's road, which was also to be situated within an R-1 zone. Orange County's Planning & Inspections Department rejected this claim, leading to a series of appeals culminating in the Supreme Court's affirmation of the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court upheld that, based on the unambiguous language of the zoning ordinances, no buffer was required when adjacent properties share the same zoning district.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment references several key precedents that guide the interpretation of zoning ordinances:

• Morris Communications Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Bd. of Adjustment (365 N.C. 152, 155 (2011)) – Established that zoning appeals undergo de novo review for legal errors and interpretation challenges.
• Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjustment (354 N.C. 298, 303 (2001)) – Clarified that zoning ordinances are interpreted similarly to statutes, starting with the plain meaning of the text.
• Lanvale Properties, LLC v. County of Cabarrus (366 N.C. 142, 154 (2012)) – Reinforced that clear and unambiguous language in statutes is to be given its plain meaning.
• Coastal Ready-Mix Concrete Co. v. Bd. of Comm'rs (299 N.C. 620, 629 (1980)) – Highlighted the use of statutory construction tools when ordinance language is ambiguous.
• YANCEY v. HEAFNER (268 N.C. 263, 266 (1966)) – Emphasized that zoning laws, being in derogation of common law rights, must be clearly expressed without implied meanings.
• WILLIAMS v. WILLIAMS (299 N.C. 174, 180 (1980)) – Established that legislative interpretive guides within statutes must be considered during judicial interpretation.
• White v. Worth (126 N.C. 570, 583 (1900)) – Affirmed the judiciary's role in interpreting the law as established by the legislature.

Legal Reasoning

The court's legal reasoning focused on statutory interpretation principles, particularly emphasizing that when the text of an ordinance is clear and unambiguous, it must be followed over any supplementary materials, such as tables or figures. The Orange County zoning ordinance included an interpretive provision stating that in case of any conflict between the text and accompanying tables or illustrations, the text controls. This provision guided the court in dismissing conflicting instructions in the zoning table, which included non-zoning categories like highways and active farms.

The court analyzed the specific sections of the zoning ordinance, highlighting that Sections 6.8.6(A) and (B) provided clear directives on land use buffers based on zoning districts. The accompanying Table 6.8.6.D introduced ambiguity by including non-zoning categories, which conflicted with the textual provisions. However, the interpretive rule in Article 1, Section 1.1.12, clearly established that the ordinance's text takes precedence over any supplemental materials. Thus, the court concluded that no buffer was required between two R-1 zoned properties, as per the unambiguous ordinance text.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the primacy of clear, unambiguous textual provisions in zoning ordinances over supplemental interpretive materials. By affirming that the ordinance's text controls in cases of conflict, the Supreme Court of North Carolina provides local governments with judicial backing to rely on textual clarity in their zoning rules. This decision discourages reliance on potentially conflicting tables or figures unless they are clearly aligned with the ordinance's text. For property owners and developers, the ruling underscores the importance of adhering to the explicit terms of zoning ordinances, while understanding that interpretive guides provided by the legislature will govern in the event of ambiguity.

Complex Concepts Simplified

De Novo Review

De Novo Review is a legal standard where the appellate court reviews the issue anew, without deferring to the lower court's conclusions. In zoning appeals, this means the higher court independently examines the interpretation of zoning laws without being bound by the decisions of lower courts or administrative bodies.

Zoning Ordinances

Zoning Ordinances are laws established by local governments to regulate land use within their jurisdictions. They designate specific areas for residential, commercial, industrial, or agricultural purposes, and set guidelines for property development and land use to ensure orderly growth and prevent conflicts between different land uses.

Land Use Buffers

Land Use Buffers are specified areas between different property uses intended to mitigate potential conflicts, such as noise, traffic, or other disturbances. Buffers can include vegetation, physical barriers, or other measures to separate incompatible land uses.

Interpretive Rules in Legislation

Interpretive Rules are provisions within legislation that guide how the law should be interpreted and applied. They help clarify the meanings of terms and the relationships between different sections of the law to ensure consistent application and reduce ambiguity.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of North Carolina's decision in Alison Arter v. Orange County emphasizes the necessity for clarity in legislative drafting, particularly in complex zoning ordinances. By upholding the principle that the plain text of the law prevails over any conflicting supplementary materials, the court ensures that zoning regulations remain predictable and enforceable. This ruling serves as a precedent for future cases, guiding both lawmakers in drafting unambiguous ordinances and courts in interpreting them. Effective zoning regulation is crucial for balanced community development, and this decision contributes to the robustness and reliability of such regulations.