Adams Homes AEC

• Court: Court of Appeals of North Carolina
• Decided: May 21, 2025
• Docket: 24-924
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NORTH CAROLINA

No. COA24-924

Filed 21 May 2025

Stanly County, No. 23CVS000493-830

ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC, Plaintiff,

v.

STANLY COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Defendant.

Appeal by Plaintiff from an order entered 18 July 2024 by Judge Claire V. Hill

in Stanly County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 April 2025.

Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP by Frederick M. Thurman, Jr., for Plaintiff- Appellant.

Womble, Bond, Dickenson (US) LLP, by Alexander J. Buckley, for Defendant- Appellee.

WOOD, Judge.

Adams Homes AEC, LLC (“Plaintiff”) appeals from an order denying Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment and granting the cross Motion for Summary

Judgment for Stanly County (“Defendant”).

I. Factual and Procedural Background

In September 2007, a developer recorded a map for a new development in the

City of Locust, North Carolina, named Glenwood at the Village of Redbridge (the

“Development”). In May 2018, Plaintiff began acquiring multiple parcels within the

existing development. In November 2018, Defendant entered an Interlocal ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

Opinion of the Court

Agreement with the City of Locust. The City of Locust is primarily located in Stanly

County, however certain portions of the city limits, including the Development, are

in Cabarrus County. Cabarrus County did not have the infrastructure necessary to

provide water and sewer services to those neighborhoods therefore, the interlocal

agreement was created in which Defendant agreed to provide water service to all the

developments within the City of Locust including those in Cabarrus County.

Plaintiff began building homes on their parcels within the Development

sometime after the Interlocal Agreement was signed and upon completion of the

homes would arrange with Defendant for the installation of water meters and the

commencement of water services.

In September 2022, Defendant enacted Ordinance SCU No. 2022-02, “An

Ordinance to Adopt System Development Fees for the Water and Sewer System as

Authorized by Article 8 of Chapter 162A of the North Carolina General Statutes” (the

“Ordinance”). The Ordinance is a land use plan which allows Defendant to collect

System Development Fees, a charge or assessment for service imposed for new

developments, to fund the costs of capital improvements attributable to expanding

capacity to service new developments.

In May 2023, Defendant began charging Plaintiff a system development fee

(“SDF”) under the Ordinance for each parcel in the Development when it was

connected to water services. Plaintiff paid the fees under protest. On 13 June 2023,

-2- ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against Defendant. Defendant

filed their answer to Plaintiff’s complaint on 16 August 2023.

On 29 May 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, and on 31

May 2024, Defendant filed a cross Motion for Summary Judgment. Both motions for

summary judgment were heard in Stanly County Superior Court on 10 June 2024.

On 18 June 2024, the trial court filed an order denying Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment and granting Defendant’s motion for the same finding, “Defendant Stanly

County has properly interpreted Ordinance No. 2022-02” and the “System

Development Fees assessed by Stanly County . . . were validly assessed and done so

in a manner consistent with the Ordinance.”

Plaintiff filed written notice of appeal on 18 July 2024.

II. Analysis

On appeal, Plaintiff contends the trial court erred as a matter of law in

interpreting Ordinance SCU No. 2022-02 and granting summary judgment to the

Defendant. Specifically, Plaintiff contends their parcels do not meet the definition of

“new development” as outlined in the Ordinance. We disagree.

A. Standard of Review

“Our standard of review of an appeal from summary judgment is de novo; such

judgment is appropriate only when the record shows that there is no genuine issue

as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

law.” Galloway as Trustee of Melissa Galloway Snell Living Trust Dated May 1, 2018

-3- ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

v. Snell, 384 N.C. 285, 287, 885 S.E.2d 834, 836 (2023).

B. Interpretation of Ordinance SCU no. 2022-2

In 2017, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted session law 2017-138

(HB 436) known as the “Public Water and Sewer System Development Fee Act” (“the

Act”) amending Chapter 162A of the General Statutes. 2017 N.C. Sess. Laws 138;

N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 162A-200-215 (2024). This amendment authorized procedures and

methods for the calculation and authorization of system development fees to be

charged by local governments. A system development fee (“SDF”) is defined by

statute as, “[a] charge or assessment for service . . . imposed with respect to new

development to fund costs of capital improvements necessitated by and attributable

to such new development, to recoup costs of existing facilities which serve such new

development, or a combination of those costs. . . .” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-201(9)

(2024).

In September 2022, Defendant enacted Ordinance SCU No. 2022-02, “An

Ordinance to Adopt System Development Fees for the Water and Sewer System as

Authorized by Article 8 of Chapter 162A of the North Carolina General Statutes”

(“the Ordinance”) in compliance with the Act passed by the General Assembly. The

Ordinance specifically states, “[s]ystem development fees shall be charged consistent

with the requirements of [N.C. Gen. Stat.] Chapter 162A, Article 8 as such may be

amended from time to time. Terms used in this section shall have the same meanings

as set forth in [N.C. Gen. Stat.] Chapter 162A, Article 8.” Ordinance SCU No. 2022-

-4- ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

02.

Under the Ordinance, “new development” is defined in pertinent part as,

. . . any of the following occurring after the September 6, 2021 (the one year look back period for platted subdivisions required by [N.C. Gen. Stat.] § 162A-201) that increases the water and/or sewer capacity necessary to serve that development:

a. The subdivision of land; b. The construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation, or enlargement of any structure which increases the number of service units; or c. Any use or extension of the use of land which increases the number of service units.

Ordinance SCU No. 2022-02 (emphasis added). This definition is consistent with the

definition of “new development” in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-201(6).

Plaintiff’s argument hinges on the definition of “service units.” Plaintiff argues

that service units should mean the capacity necessary to serve the development as

determined when the original map was approved and recorded in Cabarrus County,

in which case there was no “increase in service units” based on Plaintiff’s home

building activity that would qualifying as “new development.” We disagree.

We review issues of statutory construction de novo. In re Ernst & Young, LLP,

363 N.C. 612, 616, 684 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2009). “If the statutory language is clear and

unambiguous, the court eschews statutory construction in favor of giving the words

their plain and definite meaning.” JVC Enters., LLC v. City of Concord, 376 N.C.

-5- ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

782, 785, 855 S.E.2d 158, 161 (2021). However, if the statutory language is

ambiguous, “[i]t is well settled that . . . the court should defer to the agency’s

interpretation of the statute as long as the agency’s interpretation is reasonable and

based on a permissible construction of the statute.” State ex rel. Utils. Comm’n v.

Env’t Working Grp., 295 N.C. App. 650, 662, 907 S.E.2d 409, 417 (2024).

The term “service unit” is not defined within the Ordinance. However, it is

defined within N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-201(8), and the Ordinance explicitly included

the terms of the Act. Under the Act service unit is defined as “[a] unit of measure,

typically an equivalent residential unit, calculated in accordance with generally

accepted engineering or planning standards.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-201(8) (2024).

An equivalent residential unit (“ERU”) is not defined within Article 8 of N.C. Gen.

Stat. § 162A-201 and a thorough review of the General Statutes and Administrative

Code reveal no use of the term. Additionally, there is a dearth of case law defining

an ERU. In Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City of Durham, our Supreme Court

heard a case involving a City of Durham code in which Durham defined an ERU as

“2,400 square feet of impervious surface, which is the average amount of impervious

surface on a single family property in the city.” Smith Chapel Baptist Church v. City

of Durham, 350 N.C. 805, 817, 517 S.E.2d 874, 882 (1999) ( citing Durham, N.C., Code

ch. 23, art. VIII, § 23–201). Notably, in Smith Chapel Baptist Church our Supreme

Court did not define what an ERU is. Other cities and towns within North Carolina

utilize similar definitions of ERU in their codes as Durham does, typically when

-6- ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

referencing storm water management. In Kinston an ERU is defined as “the total

impervious area of a typical single-family residential property, and is determined as

the median impervious area of a representative sample, as determined by the city, of

all developed residential properties in the single-family residential category.”

Kinston, N.C., Code part II, ch. 19, art. IV, § 19-182. In Kings Mountain the code

reads “such charges shall be based on the amount of impervious surface on each

parcel as determined by the equivalent residential unit standard. For purposes of

this chapter, an equivalent residential unit (ERU) is 2000 square feet of impervious

surface.” Kings Mountain, N.C., Code title V, ch. 54, § 54.006. In Apex an ERU is

defined as 2,700 square feet of impervious surface, which is the average amount of

impervious surface on a single-family detached property in the town (based on GIS

analysis). Apex, N.C., Code ch. 12, art. III, div. VII, §12-111.

According to definitions currently in use within the state of North Carolina, an

ERU is a measurement equal to the average area of impervious surface on a parcel

of land for a single-family residential property in the applicable regulated area. We

apply this definition to the context of the statute as “[w]e first look at the statute as

a ‘composite whole’ to avoid construing any of its words or phrases out of context.” In

re Expungement for Spencer, 140 N.C. App. 776, 779, 538 S.E.2d 236, 238 (2000)

(cleaned up). In applying this definition of ERU to section (A)(2)(b) of Ordinance SCU

No. 2022-02, new development occurs when “construction, reconstruction,

redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration, relocation or enlargement of any

-7- ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

structure increases the number of [measurements equal to the average area of

impervious surface on a parcel of land for a single-family residential property in

Stanly County].” This definition lacks precision and is ambiguous. One could

perceive “the measurements equal to the average area” as a calculation of estimated

possible capacity needed in the future based on the recorded maps as posited by the

Plaintiff or alternatively it could be the number of actual impervious surfaces of

“average area” in existence for which water capacity is imminently necessary as

argued by Defendant.

Since the Ordinance and the Act are ambiguous in regard to the definition of

service units or equivalent residential units and, therefore, what qualifies as new

development, precedent dictates that we “should defer to the agency’s interpretation

of the statute as long as the agency’s interpretation is reasonable and based on a

permissible construction of the statute.” State ex rel. Utils. Comm’n v. Env’t Working

Grp., 295 N.C. App. 650, 662, 907 S.E.2d 409, 417 (2024).

In this instance, Defendant contends their Ordinance should be read to

include increases in the number of actual ERUs in existence as constituting “new

development.” We agree. Defendant’s reading of ERUs within the definition of “new

development” is a reasonable construction of the Ordinance that gives meaning not

only to all the words within section (A)(2) of Ordinance SCU No. 2022-02 but is also

consistent with other sections within the entirety of Ordinance SCU No. 2022-02 as

well as the enabling statute N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-201.

-8- ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

Within section (A)(2) of the Ordinance, reading ERUs to refer to actual

impervious surface gives meaning to each of the nouns utilized in subsections b and

c. This aligns with the presumption that “when the legislature enacts a statute, it

intentionally includes and gives meaning to every word therein.” Happel v. Guilford

Cnty. Bd. of Educ., __ N.C. __, __, 913 S.E.2d 174, 192 (2025). If the actual existence

or creation (new construction) of an impervious surface is read into the definition,

then “construction, reconstruction, redevelopment, conversion, structural alteration,

relocation, or enlargement of any structure” potentially increases the number of

service units. In contrast, if ERUs refer to impervious surfaces that potentially could

exist, and the corresponding capacities determined upon the original plot map of a

development, then irrespective of any future building or land uses the number of

service units as determined at the time the map was filed would not increase.

Within the broader reading of the Ordinance, section E subsections 2 and 3

both support Defendant’s interpretation. Subsection 2 states,

For all [non-subdivision] new development, the County shall collect the system development fee at the earlier of either of the following: (a) The time of application for connection of the individual unit of development to the service or facilities. (b) When water or sewer service is committed by the county.

Ordinance SCU No. 2022-02(E)(2). The Ordinance authorizes a fee collection once an

actual structure is prepared to receive water services not when a proposed

-9- ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

subdivision map is recorded and possible water capacity could be calculated. If the

later reading of the Ordinance were adopted then Defendant would collect fees based

on the capacity suggested when the map is filed, a proposal that could negatively

impact developers who may or may not be able to complete the proposed development

as drawn and may not have the funds to pay all water fees long before any houses are

ready for sale. Such a payment schedule was explicitly prohibited by the legislature

in N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-213, which creates a specific timeline for the collection of

system development fees anchored on either the building of a structure or the

connection of a structure to the service. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-213 (2024).

Additionally, subsection 3 states,

For ongoing subdivisions currently under construction, the system development fees shall be due at the time of application for water and/or sewer service. All subdivided lots that have completed dwellings and the owner or developer has made application and paid for water and/or sewer connection shall not pay system development fees for those lots.

Ordinance SCU No. 2022-02(E)(3). Again, this subsection of the Ordinance is

consistent with the notion that the completion of construction effectively increases

the number of service units thereby triggering the system development fees.

Finally, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-201 defines “existing development” as “[l]and

subdivisions, structures, and land uses in existence at the start of the written

analysis process required by [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 162A-205, no more than one year

- 10 - ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

prior to the adoption of a system development fee.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 162A-201(3)

(2024). Based on this clear and unambiguous definition, the parcels at issue in the

case sub judice do not qualify as existing development because the structures and

land uses in contest were not in existence one year prior to the 6 September 2022

adoption of system development fees. If Plaintiff’s proposed definition of ERU were

incorporated in the Ordinance defining new development, then any parcels that were

mapped prior to 6 September 2021 but have not completed construction or applied for

water or sewer services, such as the parcels at issue here, would be neither new

development nor existing development. This is an issue the legislature likely would

have foreseen and a result they would not have intended to occur. Therefore, we

agree with Defendant that a reasonable and permissible construction of the Act and

Ordinance would include such parcels by reading the definition of ERUs to refer to

actual completed construction of an average impervious surface.

III. Conclusion

Section (A)(2)(b) of Ordinance SCU No. 2022-02 based on N.C. Gen. Stat. §162-

201(6) and (8) is ambiguous; therefore, statutory interpretation precedence dictates

we turn to Defendant Stanly County’s interpretation of its own Ordinance. Finding

Defendant’s interpretation to be both reasonable and based on a permissible

construction of the statute, we affirm the trial court’s order granting summary

judgment for Defendant.

AFFIRMED.

- 11 - ADAMS HOMES AEC, LLC V. STANLY CNTY.

Judge ARROWOOD concurs.

Judge FREEMAN concurs in result only.

- 12 -