Terrell_TomMr. Terrell is widely regarded as one of North Carolina’s leading land use attorneys, representing both private and governmental entities in matters related to real estate development. His practice “footprint” covers the state from the mountain counties to the coast and occasionally includes parts of Virginia and South Carolina. His many clients are involved in commercial and residential real estate, solid waste hauling and disposal, telecommunications, quarries/asphalt and miscellaneous litigation related to permit denials, vested rights and rezonings.

He has published numerous articles and speaks regularly to legal, governmental and business groups on a variety of issues related to land use and zoning.

Mr. Terrell has served as a leader in numerous civic and legal endeavors, including Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the N.C. State Health Plan, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Winston-Salem State University, and service on the Board of Directors of the UNC-CH General Alumni Association, Board of Directors of the High Point Chamber of Commerce, Board of Visitors of Guilford College and Board of Center Associates of the Center for Creative Leadership, and as a founding member of the N.C. Bar Association Zoning, Planning and Land Use Section.

More information can be found at https://www.foxrothschild.com/thomas-e-terrell-jr/.

Mr. Terrell can be contacted at mailto:tterrell@foxrothschild.com.

Yet another Court of Appeals case, Ecoplexus v. Currituck County, examined the denial of a solar farm and applied the same principles as in Dellinger v. Lincoln County and Innovative 55 v. Robeson County, but with some interesting twists.

Facts

Ecoplexus arises from Currituck County, a county that is now widely known as,

The Court of Appeals recently reviewed three issues in a Randolph County rezoning: was the decision “spot zoning”? Was it arbitrary and capricious? And was it adopted with appropriate procedures?  On spot zoning the law was slightly expanded. On the other two issues the court reminds us of the distinction between judicial and legislative functions.

A recent N.C. Court of Appeals decision asked all the right questions about a zoning administrator’s authority to make discretionary decisions related to standing. And with one exception, found in the dissent, the Court gave all the right answers.

In Morningstar Marinas, et. al. v. Warren County and Ken Krulik, Warren County Planning and Zoning

When a law partner poked his head into my office to give me the breaking news about Patrick Cannon, Charlotte’s newly-indicted mayor, my head told me that I should feel some degree of outrage, but my heart only felt sadness.

Like all of us, I watched the news unfold to learn what seemed to be

A recent N.C. Court of Appeals decision expanded upon and clarified when a prior quasi-judicial decision is binding on future boards.

Disclosure: It was my privilege to have served as co-counsel at the board level and as lead litigation counsel for the petitioners in this case. While I don’t believe the commentary below exhibits

Quasi-judicial proceedings are quite common in land use decisions.  They are proceedings where the local board loosely follows the rules of the courtroom in order to determine if the applicant has presented sufficient evidence on which the board can make the necessary findings to issue a variance or a special use permit or to overturn

Several years ago a Guilford County Commissioner told me, chuckling, that he had just heard Jim Melvin, Greensboro’s former mayor, defend some of his ideas for Greensboro’s downtown improvements by saying this: “I don’t want to die in a mediocre city.”

The sentiment resonates.

Last week WordPress sent me my blog statistics for 2013.  Among

Just before Christmas the N.C. Court of Appeals issued an opinion that illustrates the necessity of presenting facts to support your case when the board is considering a special or conditional use permit.  Opinions, speculations, conjectures and surmises, the Court properly reminds us, are not evidence.

In Blair Investments, LLC v. Roanoke Rapids, the