"Summit at River Run was originally approved July 26, 2004. Infrastructure was added shortly afterward. With vested rights per the infrastructure, the plan has recently been revived for review by Mecklenburg County and the Town of Davidson. Construction will likely begin in the fall of 2017."
The project will consist of 10 single family homes and 18 townhomes in what basically amounts to a cul de sac off of East Rocky River Rd. aShortChronicle contacted the town and found out any required affordable housing will likely be a payment in lieu. Also, the project appears to be disconnected from the rest of River Run with no street connections into the larger neighborhood.
In my opinion this is the type of situation where we are in a position to enforce our Ordinance and the law in the light most favorable to the Town. I believe there was a common law vested right but as with all vested rights it has a time limit. The Courts have said a common law vested right continues for a reasonable period of time after the developer last made a substantial expenditure on the property pursuant to the approval. If the quote above is correct, then is 12-13 years after the approval and expenditures a reasonable period of time? Does our planning department or administration believe a "ghost" development sitting for 12-13 years is OK?
ReplyDeleteI will say that I have no opinion on the development itself but I am strongly in support or the Town taking back its control. In my opinion the Town's position should be that the development has been dormant and the vested rights expired with the passage of a reasonable period of time (4-5 yrs). If the plan previously submitted met all the ordinance critria then the re-application process should be easy, and to require such would show we enforce our ordinances. Again the development itself is not what I take issue with. I do take issue with the interpretation our ordinance and the law again in the developers favor.
Thanks Sandy, totally agree with your comment. To me, this situation also exemplifies why continuing to use Rick Kline for town business is such a problem.
ReplyDeleteHow likely are the planning department and current town attorney to call out the expiration of these rights to Mr Kline who is representing the developer on this project when they also depend on Mr Kline for this kind of real estate law knowledge? Not very.
Thanks Sandy, totally agree with your comment. To me, this situation also exemplifies why continuing to use Rick Kline for town business is such a problem.
ReplyDeleteHow likely are the planning department and current town attorney to call out the expiration of these rights to Mr Kline who is representing the developer on this project when they also depend on Mr Kline for this kind of real estate law knowledge? Not very.