Rockingham County asks North Carolina Supreme Court to dismiss casino-linked rezoning lawsuit

Rockingham County is petitioning the North Carolina Supreme Court to throw out a lawsuit filed by local residents and businesses that challenges the 2023 approval of a 192-acre rezoning linked to a potential casino. 

The legal dispute, which has been linked to a 2023 controversy over casino gambling, has seen conflicting rulings from lower courts. The county's appeal follows a unanimous state Appeals Court panel decision in July that reversed an earlier dismissal, allowing the case to proceed.

The lawsuit was originally filed in October 2023 by the Camp Carefree summer camp, Kalo Food bakery, and nine neighboring property owners. They are seeking to invalidate two amendments to Rockingham County's development ordinance, one of which changed the property's zoning from “residential agricultural” to “highway commercial” and another that added new permitted uses to that district.

In their petition, the county’s lawyers, led by County Attorney Clyde Albright, argue that the Appeals Court’s decision is inconsistent with prior precedent. They claim that plaintiffs challenging a zoning decision must demonstrate “special damages” to have the legal standing to sue.

“This ruling contradicted prior decisions of the Court of Appeals and is inconsistent with prior holdings of this Court requiring a showing of direct and adverse consequences to have standing to challenge a zoning decision of a local governmental entity,” the petition states. It adds that the decision could "significantly increases the potential for litigation for any person residing in the County."

The Appeals Court opinion, written by Judge Allegra Collins and joined by Judges Donna Stroud and Valerie Zachary, disagreed with the county's argument. The court reasoned that since the rezoning was a legislative act, not a quasi-judicial one, the plaintiffs were not required to demonstrate special damages.

“Plaintiffs argue that they made sufficient allegations to establish standing to bring this action and did not need to further plead special damages,” Collins wrote. “Following this Court’s recent opinion in Gardner v. Richmond Cnty. ... we agree and reverse the trial court’s order.”

The lawsuit has been driven by a range of concerns from the plaintiffs. The Camp Carefree board member expressed worry about the impact of a potential casino on children with chronic illnesses, while the bakery owner cited traffic issues.

Neighboring residents raised concerns about potential water contamination, noise, light pollution, trespassing, and other criminal activity arising from the additional uses now permitted. The Appeals Court noted that because the plaintiffs' properties are "either abutting or in close proximity to the rezoned property," they have a clear basis for their claims.

The case will return to a trial judge to proceed on the plaintiffs’ claims if the North Carolina Supreme Court declines to hear the county’s appeal.