The North Carolina Court of Appeals has reversed a trial judge’s 2023 decision to block construction of a new lodge in Montreat. The judge had overturned a town board’s decision to permit new construction by the Montreat Retreat Association.
The disputed project involves “replacement of existing structures; the construction of a new 29,000 square foot building with forty guest rooms, offices, and meeting spaces; and a thirty-space parking garage located under the building,” according to the unpublished Appeals Court opinion released Wednesday. Unpublished opinions have limited value as precedents for future cases.
Neighbors who filed suit against the project cited concerns about water pollution, tree removal, danger to children in a nearby park, and replacement of historic buildings with a larger modern “hotel.”
Appellate judges agreed with MRA that the trial judge made a mistake by excluding expert testimony from a traffic and highway maintenance engineer who in support of the project. That testimony “was supported by factual data derived from a traffic impact study,” Judge Michael Stading wrote.
“The evidence offered by the expert witness ‘appears to be sufficiently trustworthy and was admitted under such circumstances that it was reasonable for the decision‑making board to rely upon it,’” Stading added.
The Appeals Court also agreed with MRA that the town had “substantial evidence” supporting its decision to grant a special use permit for the construction project.
“The trial court’s order reversing the grant of the SUP to the MRA is silent as to which ‘application requirements’ the MRA failed to satisfy,” Stading wrote. “The trial court’s order merely concludes: ‘Reversal and remand to the BOA is warranted in this case, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-1402(k)(3)(b), because the Board’s decisions was not supported by competent, material and substantial evidence and included the above-identified errors of law.”
“Our review of the evidentiary record and the trial court’s order leads us to conclude the evidence presented to the Board was sufficient for their determination to award the SUP to the MRA,” Stading explained.
Appellate judges rejected arguments that the town’s decision violated the critics’ due process rights.
Four members of the town Board of Adjustment had made financial contributions to MRA. That evidence was not enough to prove that the board could not make an impartial decision, Stading wrote.
“[W]e hold the trial court erroneously concluded that these monetary contributions — without additional evidence — created an impermissible close associational relationship under subsection 160D-109(d),” Stading explained. “Although Board members donating money to the MRA may indicate a connection to the organization, the evidentiary record does not demonstrate a close associational relationship between these actors; the record merely evidences a history of donations by certain Board members to the MRA.”
“The record does not contain information beyond specific dollar amounts listed in lump sums over a span of years,” he added. “Without additional evidence establishing a close associational relationship between Board members and the MRA, we cannot draw the same conclusion as the trial court.”
The Appeals Court rejected the argument that communications between MRA leaders and the board violated the challengers’ rights. “Absent a showing of bias or prejudice, we hold Petitioners’ due process rights were not violated,” Stading wrote.
Nor did the town “impermissibly delegate legislative authority” to the Board of Adjustment, according to appellate judges.
Judge Fred Gore joined Stading’s opinion. Judge Tom Murry concurred “in result only” but did not write a separate opinion.
The post Appeals Court reverses trial judge’s decision against Montreat lodge appeared first on Carolina Journal.