We’re proud to see Jason recognized for the exceptional service he provides to clients, his commitment to our community, and the leadership he brings to our firm every day. This is a well-earned honor, and we’re excited to celebrate him and this outstanding achievement.

The post Congratulations Jason Barron, 2026 Winner of Inaugural TBJ Triangle Law Awards appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Insight by Morningstar Law Group Partner Nil Ghosh

Imagine you own a parcel of land where you desire to build a house. The property is large enough to build on, but the land is subject to a local zoning ordinance with various setback requirements and due to the shape and topography of the land, it would be extremely difficult to build in compliance with the ordinances. So, you take your matter to the local board of adjustment and ask for a variance from the zoning ordinance and put forward all your evidence in support, meeting all the requirements of North Carolina variance law. And then the board of adjustment says no anyway.

Earlier this month, in an unpublished opinion, the North Carolina Court of Appeals considered a similar issue. In Sanders P’ship, LLC v. City of Charlotte (24-604), the Court ruled that if a property owner is able to make a prima facia case for a variance, they are entitled to one.

Background

In Sanders, the Petitioners owned several acres of land on which they desired to construct a landfill. Pursuant to the City of Charlotte’s zoning ordinance, the Petitioners were able to build the landfill if they were able to meet eight qualifications. One of the qualifications is that the vehicular access for the landfill is not from a residential collector street. Unfortunately for the Petitioners, one of the two roads fronting the property had recently been designated as a residential collector street despite the fact that the road had served as the access point for two other nearby landfills, one of which previously operated on Petitioners’ property!

In fact, the property appeared to be the ideal location for a landfill. The Petitioners’ property had already been a landfill in the past and there was another landfill located across the road. Furthermore, the North Carolina Department of Transportation maintained “Trucks Entering the Highway” signs on the residential collector street near the entrance to the former landfill.

While the property did have frontage on another road, due to the location of other residential developments, NCDOT denied the Petitioners’ application for an entry there, explaining that entry from the residential collector street would be safer.

Due to this denial by NCDOT, which left the residential collector street as the only access to the property, the Petitioners filed for a variance with the Charlotte Board of Adjustment (the “BOA”).

Yet, at the hearing on the variance application, the BOA denied the variance. The Petitioners appealed the BOA decision to the Superior Court which reversed the BOA’s decision. Subsequently, the City appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.

The Law of Variances

Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160D-705(d), to obtain a variance from a zoning ordinance in North Carolina, a property owner must satisfy the following criteria:

• Unnecessary hardship would result from the strict application of the regulation. It is not necessary to demonstrate that, in the absence of the variance, no reasonable use can be made of the property.
• The hardship results from conditions that are peculiar to the property, such as location, size, or topography. Hardships resulting from personal circumstances, as well as hardships resulting from conditions that are common to the neighborhood or the general public, may not be the basis for granting a variance.
• The hardship did not result from actions taken by the applicant or the property owner. The act of purchasing property with knowledge that circumstances exist that may justify the granting of a variance is not a self-created hardship.
• The requested variance is consistent with the spirit, purpose, and intent of the regulation, such that public safety is secured and substantial justice is achieved.

It should be noted that North Carolina’s variance law is far more generous than in other states. Virginia, for example, has a far more draconian standard for granting a variance. North Carolina’s variance law is shaped by the state’s desire to allow property owners to use their property.

In Sanders, however, the BOA determined that the Petitioners, despite the evidence presented—that the property had been a landfill in the recent past, that another landfill existed across the street, that the “residential collector street” designation was a recent change, that there was no other access to the property, and that NCDOT determined that the residential collector access was safest—only satisfied the third requirement (that the hardship was not the result of the Petitioners’ actions).

In its opinion, the Court, quoting Robertson v. Zoning Bd. of Adjust. for City of Charlotte, 167 N.C. App. 531 (2004), stated that an applicant for a variance “bear[s] the burden of proving their case and must show what type of variance they need and why the variance is needed” and that if an applicant meets their burden, “the board of adjustment shall vary any of the provisions of the zoning regulation ….” Therefore, once a property owner presents evidence for each of the elements of the statute, a board of adjustment must grant the variance.

Granting variances from zoning ordinances is an essential function of a board of adjustment. “One of the fundamental purposes of zoning boards of adjustment is to provide flexibility and prevent … practical difficulties and unnecessary hardships resulting from strict interpretations of zoning ordinances.” Morris Comm. Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 365 N.C. 152, 159 (2011). The entirety of the statute (and case law that has grown around it) indicates North Carolina’s desire that zoning ordinances not be applied in an overly technical, rigid manner.

In its review, the Court considered the evidence presented for each element of the variance statute as it applied to the case at hand and found that the Petitioners had provided prima facia evidence for each element sufficient to support the grant of a variance. The Court therefore affirmed the Superior Court’s reversal of the BOA’s denial and the variance was secured. While the opinion is unpublished, and therefore not able to be cited as a controlling legal authority, the case is a fantastic summary of North Carolina’s variance law and a reminder that a board of adjustment’s responsibility is not to judge the value of a variance, but to grant it if the applicant meets the statutory requirements. Once those requirements are met, the board of adjustment must grant the variance.

While this may seem self-evident, this rule is not always followed and it can still be difficult to obtain a variance, even if all the elements of the statute are met. If you are a property owner or developer in need of a variance, it is still important to have experienced legal guidance to assist you with your application and ensure that the right evidence is presented. While we recognize it is ideal to secure victory at the Board of Adjustment, lawyers at the Morningstar Law Group will prepare your variance so that a clean record will hold up on appeal if that is necessary, like in the Sanders case.

The post The Case for Variances in North Carolina appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Insight by Morningstar Law Group Partner Molly Stuart

There has been some confusion about whether the City of Raleigh has halted annexations. In short: Raleigh has not enacted a moratorium. But the City has temporarily narrowed eligibility for certain annexation requests.

What’s Changed?

Raleigh’s annexation policy generally allows annexation eligibility based on several factors—such as whether the property is in the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (the “ETJ”), within an annexation agreement area, or directly touches city limits.

However, effective October 26, 2025, and for a 12-month period, Raleigh adopted a temporary freeze on one path to eligibility. Properties can no longer qualify for annexation solely because they become newly contiguous to the city limits. In other words, when the City annexes a parcel, that action will not make additional adjacent parcels automatically eligible during the freeze period. This appears in Resolution No. (2025) 717, which contains a map of the eligible area, called the “Priority Annexation Area.”

Why Did the City Do This?

The City wants to stabilize boundary changes while staff reviews broader policies related to growth, annexation, and water/sewer service. Possible policy revisions may follow, but none have been announced yet.

What This Means for Developers

• Annexations are still happening, including for properties within the ETJ and adjacent to city limits as of October 25, 2025.
• Projects relying on new contiguity-only eligibility will be ineligible for the term of this policy.
• Projects qualifying under other criteria—such as ETJ status, pre-existing contiguity, or annexation agreement areas—may still move forward.
• Look out for potential changes to Raleigh’s long-term growth and utility extension policies once staff completes its evaluation.

This policy does make it less clear when annexation is available for a property. If you’re ready to dig in, let’s talk. mstuart@morningstarlawgroup.com; 919.890.3318.

The post Raleigh’s Annexation Policy – What Developers Need to Know appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Ann joins us as Counsel in our Real Estate and Land Use practice, bringing extensive experience in land use, planning, zoning, and civil litigation.

Before joining Morningstar, Ann served as Town Attorney for Chapel Hill and as a tenured professor at the UNC School of Government, where she taught and advised North Carolina judges. Her background gives her a unique perspective on the legal challenges faced by real estate developers, municipalities, and property owners.

“Ann’s expertise in land use, municipal law, and civil litigation makes her an exceptional addition to our team,” said Jason Barron, Partner and Integrator at Morningstar. “Her insight and guidance will be invaluable to clients navigating planning, zoning, and land use issues.”

Our Real Estate and Land Use group continues to grow — now 12 attorneys strong — helping clients move projects forward across North Carolina.

We’re thrilled to have Ann on board and look forward to the experience and perspective she brings to the team.

The post Welcome Ann Anderson to Our Real Estate & Land Use Team! appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

The exhibit celebrates the visionaries who helped establish Research Triangle Park — including insights from Mack’s forthcoming book, MIRACLE ROAD: The Story of Research Triangle Park, co-authored with Allen Paul.

Join the celebration tonight at 6:00 PM (500 W. Main St.) — the event is free and open to the public!

Visit https://loom.ly/8sRfZ8I for more information.

The post Partner Mack Paul to Speak at Museum of Durham History Exhibit Opening appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Yesterday, attorneys Molly Stuart, Tish Shapiro, and staff member Branden Foster participated in the program’s Real Estate Week, engaging with undergraduate and MBA students interested in careers in real estate.

We’re honored to help foster the next generation of real estate professionals and to continue our partnership with NCCU’s outstanding program.

The post Morningstar Law Group is proud to support the MBA Real Estate Program at North Carolina Central University! appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Our firm received a Band 1 ranking, the highest recognition in this category for North Carolina. In addition:

🏅 Bill Brian was individually ranked in Band 1, a testament to his longstanding leadership and expertise.
🏅 Jason Barron, Patrick Byker, and Mack Paul were recognized in Band 2, highlighting their significant contributions and respected reputations in the field.

A Chambers ranking is one of the legal industry’s most prestigious honors—based on in-depth research and client feedback, it reflects outstanding legal ability, client service, and professional achievement.

🔗 See our full ranking here: Morningstar Law Group – Chambers USA 2025

Thank you to our clients, peers, and team members who make this recognition possible!

The post Land Use Attorneys and Firm Ranked in Chambers USA 2025 appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

RDUAA—established way back in 1939—is the powerhouse team behind one of the fastest-growing airports in the country. In just the last year, RDU welcomed over 15 million travelers, pumped $24.1 billion into the economy, and helped support a whopping 130,000+ jobs.

Nil’s leadership, vision, and deep community ties make him the perfect fit to help shape the future of this vital regional hub.

Congratulations, Nil! And thank you for stepping up to serve our communities, our state, and the broader region. The sky’s the limit!

The post Morningstar’s Nil Ghosh Appointed to RDUAA appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.

Insight by Morningstar Law Group Partner Jeff Roether

On December 13, 2024, the Supreme Court of North Carolina issued a ruling in Schooldev East, LLC, v. Town of Wake Forest (Case No. 268A22) which reaffirmed North Carolina’s public policy in favor of “the free and unrestricted use and enjoyment of land” and the protection of property rights in general.

Background

In 2019, Schooldev East, LLC (“SE”), applied to the Town of Wake Forest (the “Town”) for a major subdivision plan permit and a major site plan permit with the intention of constructing a charter school on a thirty-five-acre parcel of land.

The Town’s planning board and board of commissioners held joint hearing on the application where SE presented evidence to support the application, in specific, evidence as to SE’s compliance with the Town’s uniform development ordinance (the “UDO”) section 3.7.5 which contained provisions regarding the “construction of off-premises sidewalks, multi-use paths[,] or greenways to existing networks” and “[c]onnectivity…to surrounding residential areas”. SE presented evidence that it would construct a multi-use path along the front of the property connecting the project to a neighboring park and to a future subdivision across the road. During the hearing, no evidence in opposition to SE’s application was presented.

Despite this, the planning board voted to recommend denial of the application. The board of commissioners then deliberated, considering matters beyond the scope of the evidence presented, and subsequently voted to deny the application, justifying the denial in large part on the board’s determination that the project would not provide sufficient connectivity with all surrounding neighborhoods.

SE appealed, first to the Wake County Superior Court and then to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, both of which upheld the decision of the board of commissioners. SE then appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Analysis

The primary issue addressed by the Court was whether the applicant introduced sufficient evidence to establish the UDO’s requirement of “connectivity” to “surrounding residential areas.” The Town argued that the UDO required connection to “all” surrounding residential neighborhoods. SE argued that the UDO only required some connection to surrounding residential neighborhoods—which its application provided for—but not to all surrounding residential neighborhoods.

The Court determined that the ordinance did not expressly require connection to “all” surrounding areas. The UDO text required only connectivity “to surrounding residential areas” without any further qualification. Without express unambiguous language requiring complete connection, the Court found no basis for the denial. The Court further noted that state law prohibits the Town from compelling the applicant to provide off-premises improvements, which shows additional uncertainty as to whether the word “surrounding” was include non-contiguous properties.

As a result of the UDO’s ambiguity, the Court relied upon long-standing North Carolina precedents for the correct interpretation of land use ordinances. Under North Carolina law, any “well-founded doubt” as to the meaning of a land use ordinance must be resolved in favor of the “free use of property.” See Yancey v. Heafner, 268 N.C. 263, 266 (1966). The Court stressed that “[t]his is no arbitrary canon of construction,” but rather a reflection of “our state’s longstanding public policy favoring the ‘free and unrestricted use and enjoyment of land.’” Id at 21.

Therefore, the Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the matter to the Town to approve the applications

Conclusion

While North Carolina’s protection of property rights is not a new development, this case is an important reminder that all doubts are to be resolved in favor of the “free use of land.”. Cases such as this continue to light the way for property owners looking to utilize their property as best they can, and serves as a reminder to local governments that clarity is best for all parties involved. As the Court observed in School Dev East, property owners “should not need law degrees to figure out what local government ordinances allow them to do with their own land.” Schooldev East, LLC, v. Town of Wake Forest, 386 N.C. 775, 789 (2024).

The post Toward the Free Use of Land: SchoolDev East, LLC v. Town of Wake Forest appeared first on Morningstar Law Group.