## Facts

- Blue Ridge Company, L.L.C. owned 52.43 acres of undeveloped R-12–zoned land in the Town of Pineville, accessible only via Lakeview Drive in a residential neighborhood.
- Blue Ridge proposed a 102-lot residential subdivision (Netherby Subdivision) and submitted a sketch plan, which the Planning Board approved in September 2005.
- Blue Ridge submitted a preliminary plat in December 2005 and revised it twice in response to staff comments.
- In May 2006, the Planning Board unanimously denied the preliminary plat.
- Blue Ridge appealed to the Town Council, which conducted a quasi-judicial evidentiary hearing and denied the application under subdivision ordinance § 6.150.
- The Town Council cited traffic and safety concerns on Lakeview Drive, school overcrowding, and failure to show the project would result in the “most advantageous” development and protect neighborhood stability and character.
- The record included evidence that Blue Ridge complied with technical and engineering requirements; traffic experts testified the project would not create undue traffic safety problems.
- The subdivision regulations did not require a school-impact study and did not contain objective standards for denial based on school capacity or generalized impacts.
- On certiorari review, the superior court reversed and remanded for a new hearing, directing the Town to provide specific criteria to guide the compliance determination; both parties appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Town Council’s quasi-judicial denial was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence under whole-record review, or was arbitrary and capricious.
2. Whether the Town could deny a subdivision application that met objective technical requirements based on broad, subjective ordinance terms without clear, objective standards providing fair notice.
3. Whether the superior court properly reversed and remanded with instructions requiring the Town to articulate specific criteria for the new hearing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s order.
- The court held the denial was not supported by substantial competent evidence in the whole record.
- The court agreed that the Town’s reliance on broad, subjective concepts (including “most advantageous” development and generalized neighborhood impacts) lacked sufficiently articulated standards to support denial where objective requirements were met.
- The court upheld the remand requiring a new quasi-judicial hearing using specified criteria consistent with the ordinance and evidence-based decisionmaking.

## Legal Principles

- A local governing body acting in a quasi-judicial capacity must base approval or denial on competent, material, and substantial evidence when the whole record is considered; generalized concerns and community opposition are insufficient.
- Where an applicant satisfies objective technical ordinance requirements, denial cannot rest on vague, standardless discretion applied through broad policy phrases without defined criteria.
- Land-use decisionmaking must provide fair notice of what is required for approval and avoid ad hoc standards that shift during the process.
- A reviewing court may reverse and remand a quasi-judicial land-use denial and may require the decisionmaker to identify the criteria it will apply on remand to constrain discretion and permit meaningful presentation of evidence.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed reversal of Pineville’s subdivision denial because it lacked substantial evidentiary support and relied on subjective, insufficiently defined standards, and it approved a remand requiring a new hearing governed by articulated criteria.


Blue Ridge Co. v. Town of Pineville, 188 N.C. App. 466, 655 S.E.2d 843 (N.C. Ct. App. 2008)