Walton N.C., LLC v. City of Concord, 809 S.E.2d 164

Walton purchased 275.637 acres in Concord in 2012; the land had an earlier 2006 Preliminary Plat approving up to 563 (later 551) dwellings under now-repealed "cluster" provisions, but that plat expired on December 31, 2013 and no final plat was filed.
Walton knew the cluster provisions had been repealed and its pre-purchase report described the property as "raw and unentitled." The City notified Walton in December 2012 about the plat expiration; Walton did not respond.
Walton negotiated and executed a 2014 development agreement with the City for off-site sewer/water needed to serve a proposed ~551-unit subdivision; the agreement expressly required obtaining all necessary planning approvals and compliance with current local ordinances.
Walton submitted a preliminary site plan in November 2014 relying on the prior plat and was denied; Walton then sought rezoning (RC-CD) and received Commission approval but City Council denied the rezoning after hearing public opposition (traffic, schools, surrounding homes).
Walton sued seeking (1) declaration of a common-law vested right to develop under the 2006 plat, (2) reversal of City Council’s denial of rezoning, (3) specific performance of the development agreement, and (4) equal protection relief; the trial court granted summary judgment for the City and denied Walton’s motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Walton has a common-law vested right to develop under the 2006 Preliminary Plat	Walton: substantial expenditures and prior governmental approval vested a right to develop 551 units	City: Walton had notice the cluster provisions had been repealed and the plat expired; Walton did not rely in good faith on a valid, unexpired approval	No vested right — expenditures not in good-faith reliance on a valid approval; plat had expired and Walton knew it
Whether the 2014 development agreement functioned as zoning approval for ~551 units	Walton: agreement approving infrastructure and referencing ~551 units effectively preapproved the subdivision density	City: agreement required all necessary approvals and compliance with current zoning; it does not supersede zoning laws	Agreement did not constitute zoning approval; it required subsequent approval of preliminary plat and compliance with applicable zoning
Whether City Council’s denial of rezoning was arbitrary and capricious	Walton: Commission approved rezoning; Council’s denial lacked competent evidence	City: rezoning is legislative; Council cited traffic, school impacts, inconsistency with Land Use Plan — a plausible basis	Denial not arbitrary or capricious; Council’s findings had a plausible basis and are judicially unreviewable beyond that

Browning-Ferris Indus. v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 126 N.C. App. 168 (discusses that zoning ordinances do not automatically create vested rights)
Kirkpatrick v. Village Council for the Village of Pinehurst, 138 N.C. App. 79 (elements for common-law vested-rights claim)
Warner v. W & O, Inc., 263 N.C. 37 (vested rights do not protect those who delay development after a prohibitory ordinance)
In re Will of Jones, 362 N.C. 569 (summary judgment standard under North Carolina law)
Sherrill v. Town of Wrightsville Beach, 81 N.C. App. 369 (rezoning is legislative)
Allred v. City of Raleigh, 277 N.C. 530 (legislative rezoning authority limited only by arbitrariness)
Ashby v. Town of Cary, 161 N.C. App. 499 (rezoning review limited to whether action bears relation to public health, safety, welfare)
Zopfi v. City of Wilmington, 273 N.C. 430 (courts should not substitute their judgment when a plausible basis exists for legislative action)
In re Markham, 259 N.C. 566 (Planning Commission has no legislative power; rezoning is City Council’s function)
Rakestraw v. Town of Knightdale, 188 N.C. App. 129 (burden on applicant to overcome presumption that existing zoning is correct)