Little River, LLC v. Lee Cnty.
257 N.C. App. 55
N.C. Ct. App.2017Background
- Little River, LLC applied for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to operate a 48-acre quarry on a 377-acre parcel in Lee County zoned RA/RR; quarries are a permitted use in those zones subject to an SUP.
- The Lee County Board of Adjustment held five quasi-judicial hearings over six months; Petitioner and intervenors (Carolina Trace Association and others) presented evidence and were represented by counsel.
- The Board denied the SUP based on 15 findings and four legal conclusions (public health/safety, compliance with conditions/specs, impact on adjoining property values, and harmony with area).
- Petitioner sought certiorari review in superior court; intervenors were allowed to intervene. The superior court affirmed the Board after applying whole-record review and de novo review for legal errors.
- On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the panel affirmed the superior court as to standing and due process, but held Petitioner had made a prima facie showing and that intervenors failed to rebut it with competent, substantial evidence, so the Board’s denial was reversed in part and the case remanded for the Board to acknowledge the prima facie showing and consider any conditions/permits required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Little River) | Defendant's Argument (Lee County / Intervenors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to participate at quasi-judicial hearing | Intervenors lacked standing to appear and influence the Board | UDO allows any person to appear at a public quasi-judicial hearing; petitioner consented to intervention | Affirmed: intervenors permissibly appeared under UDO and superior court properly allowed intervention |
| Prima facie showing for SUP | Little River produced competent, material, substantial evidence on the UDO's four SUP criteria (health/safety, conditions, property values, harmony) | Board argued applicant failed to meet threshold and omitted required details | Reversed: Court held petitioner met burden of production (prima facie) for all four UDO criteria |
| Sufficiency of evidence supporting Board’s denial | No competent, substantial, material evidence rebutted the prima facie showing; opponents’ testimony was speculative | Board/intervenors relied on opponents’ experts and lack of then‑issued state/federal permits to justify denial | Reversed: opponents’ evidence was largely speculative; absence of permits did not defeat SUP and Board’s findings lacked substantial support |
| Due process in hearings | Petitioner claimed procedural unfairness (e.g., standing, process) | County/intervenors said procedures were agreed by counsel and petitioner had full rights to present, cross‑examine, inspect evidence | Affirmed: no due process violation; hearings afforded required procedural protections |
Key Cases Cited
- Sun Suites Holdings, LLC v. Bd. of Alderman of Town of Garner, 139 N.C. App. 269 (discusses quasi-judicial nature of boards)
- Woodhouse v. Bd. of Comm’rs of the Town of Nags Head, 299 N.C. 211 (explains conditional/conditional-use permit burden of production and legislative harmony)
- Howard v. City of Kinston, 148 N.C. App. 238 (prima facie showing standard for conditional use permits)
- Thompson v. Wake Cty. Bd. of Educ., 292 N.C. 406 (whole-record review requires considering conflicting evidence)
- Kinsey v. Spann, 139 N.C. App. 370 (blasting is ultra-hazardous and strict liability applies)
- Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. Bd. of Aldermen of the Town of Chapel Hill, 284 N.C. 458 (quasi-judicial hearings must include essential fair-trial elements)