Rockingham County is seeking the intervention of the North Carolina Supreme Court to dismiss a lawsuit brought forth by local residents and businesses contesting the 2023 endorsement of a substantial 192-acre rezoning associated with a prospective casino.
This legal challenge, tied to the 2023 discourse around casino gambling, has resulted in divergent rulings from lower courts. The county’s appeal is prompted by a unanimous decision from a state Appeals Court panel in July, which overturned an earlier dismissal, enabling the case to progress.
The initial lawsuit was lodged in October 2023 by Camp Carefree summer camp, Kalo Food bakery, and nine adjacent property owners. These plaintiffs aim to invalidate two amendments to the Rockingham County development ordinance—one modifying the property’s zoning from “residential agricultural” to “highway commercial” and another that permitted new uses in that area.
In their petition, counsel for the county, led by County Attorney Clyde Albright, argue that the Appeals Court’s ruling conflicts with established legal precedents. They assert that plaintiffs contesting a zoning decision must present evidence of “special damages” to establish their legal standing for the lawsuit.
“This ruling contradicts earlier Court of Appeals decisions and diverges from previous mandates of this Court that necessitate proof of direct and adverse impacts to have standing to contest a zoning determination by local governmental authorities,” the petition emphasizes. It also warns that the ruling could “substantially escalate the likelihood of litigation for any resident within the County.”
The Appeals Court opinion, crafted by Judge Allegra Collins, with contributions from Judges Donna Stroud and Valerie Zachary, countered the county’s assertion. The court argued that since the rezoning was a legislative act rather than a quasi-judicial one, the plaintiffs were not obligated to prove special damages.
“The plaintiffs contend they provided adequate allegations to establish standing for this action and were not required to plead special damages further,” Collins noted. “Consistent with this Court’s recent opinion in Gardner v. Richmond Cnty. … we concur and reverse the ruling of the trial court.”
The lawsuit reflects various apprehensions expressed by the plaintiffs. A member of the Camp Carefree board voiced concerns regarding the potential effects of a casino on children with chronic conditions, while the bakery owner highlighted traffic-related issues.
Residents nearby have raised alarms about possible water contamination, noise, light pollution, trespassing, and other criminal activities stemming from the newly permitted uses. The Appeals Court acknowledged that the plaintiffs’ properties are “either adjacent to or in close vicinity of the rezoned land,” thus providing adequate grounds for their claims.
If the North Carolina Supreme Court declines to entertain the county’s appeal, the case will revert to a trial judge to proceed with the plaintiffs’ claims.