A recent North Carolina Supreme Court ruling represents a win for charter schools engaged in disputes over zoning and land use. Last week, the Court ruled in favor of Schooldev East, LLC, a charter school facility developer that had sought permit applications in 2019 to build a new charter school in Wake Forest. The Town of Wake Forest denied the application in 2020, citing a local ordinance addressing pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. However, charter proponents believed the Town’s decision was inconsistent with the law and represented bias against charter schools.
The Court’s ruling reverses an earlier Court of Appeals decision, which upheld the Town’s application denial. (See Schooldev East, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest.)
Coalition submits amicus brief in the case
Given the issues at stake, the Coalition chose to submit an amicus brief, written by Coalition founder and attorney Richard Vinroot of Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, in the case. The brief claimed that local ordinance exceeded the scope of what the Town could require. Moreover, the brief argued that the Town’s decision was not based on “competent, material, and substantial evidence in the record as required by the law.” Instead, opposition was rooted in “generalized opinions and fears about charter schools.”
Similar efforts, the brief noted, could imperil future charter school construction plans:
Amicus support is especially important here, because the issues implicated by this case are far-reaching and can impact the types of requirements local governments may impose on petitioners seeking permits related to the construction of charter schools; the evidentiary burden on such petitioners; and the bases on which a local government can deny such petitions throughout the state.
… If permitted to stand, this decision would allow opponents of charter schools and local governments to circumvent the legislature’s mandates in order to improperly block the creation of new charter schools.
Moreover, as the Coalition’s brief noted:
…The record demonstrates that the Town’s decision to deny Schooldev’s permit applications was based on a desire to prevent a new charter school from being built—an issue that was not before the Town and over which the Town is supposed to have no role.
NC Supreme Court rules in favor of Schooldev East, LLC
The Court made clear in its ruling that the Town’s interpretation of local ordinance was incorrect:
The outcome of this litigation between respondent Town of Wake Forest and petitioner Schooldev East, LLC, depends on the proper interpretation of a provision in the Town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO). The Town relied on the provision to deny petitioner’s applications for permits necessary for the construction of a proposed charter school. Because the provision’s meaning is unclear, the Court of Appeals should have construed it in favor of the free use of land.
Although the Court did not cite overt bias against charter schools as a basis for its decision, the majority opinion did state this (page 13): “… The board must base its decision on the evidence and the text of the ordinance, not on the biases or whims of its members.”
The Court also noted that commissioner discussions did address charter school impact:
Despite the Town attorney’s admonition, the commissioners’ deliberations went beyond the evidence introduced at the quasi-judicial hearing. Some commissioners worried that the proposed charter school would have a negative impact on a nearby public elementary school. One commissioner remarked that the elementary school had an occupancy level of just sixty-seven percent. Another opined that “with [the charter school] directly abutting [the elementary] school that’s below occupancy,” the charter school would “draw students from [the elementary school] which means less money going into [the elementary] school.”
The Coalition is pleased with the Court’s decision. Ultimately, Wake Preparatory Academy, the charter school Schooldev initially proposed to build, settled elsewhere. However, as NC Tribune noted this week, the Court’s decision “could have implications for how the majority handles other land-use disputes.”
Read more history about the case from Carolina Journal.
Above: Shutterstock photo.
Recent Comments