Currituck Cnty. v. Letendre

102 F.4th 252

CURRITUCK COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff - Appellant,Marie Long; Michael Long, Intervenors - Appellants, v. Elizabeth E. LETENDRE, Defendant - Appellee.

No. 22-1785

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Argued: October 25, 2023

Decided: May 17, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (2:19-cv-00027-BO)

ARGUED: George Nicholas Herman, BROUGH LAW FIRM, PLLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; George Bullock Currin, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Scott Elliott Bayzle, PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Stephen V. Carey, Jonathan E. Hall, Michael J. Crook, PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and Julie R. RUBIN, United States District Judge for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published opinion. Chief Judge Diaz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Thacker and Judge Rubin joined.

DIAZ, Chief Judge:

The Chesapeake is a 15,000 square foot vacation home owned by Elizabeth LeTendre¹ and located in Currituck County, North Carolina. For over a decade, Currituck County, LeTendre, and LeTendre's neighbors, Marie and Michael Long, have been embroiled in litigation over whether the Chesapeake complies with county and state zoning requirements.

In Long v. Currituck County, the North Carolina Court of Appeals ruled that the Chesapeake violated a county zoning ordinance. 248 N.C.App. 55, 787 S.E.2d 835, 841 (2016). When LeTendre couldn't bring the house up to code, the County sued her in state court to enforce Long's mandate and hold LeTendre in contempt if she refused to comply.

LeTendre removed the case to federal court, where she sought a declaratory judgment that the Chesapeake now complies with both county and state requirements. In her view, a recent amendment to North Carolina's state zoning law abrogates Long.

The district court agreed with LeTendre. We do as well and so affirm.

I.

A.

Our story begins in 2011, when LeTendre bought an oceanfront plot of land in the Outer Banks, within Currituck County.²

The lot is subject to both state and county zoning requirements, including the Currituck County Unified Development Ordinance. See Currituck County, N.C., Unified Dev. Ordinance (2023), https://currituckcountync.gov/unified-development-ordinance/ [https://perma.cc/N48F-763Z]. And it's in an area the County has designated for zoning purposes as "Single Family Residential Outer Banks Remote." J.A. 224, see also Unified Dev. Ordinance § 3.4.4, https://currituckcountync.gov/wp-content/uploads/chapter-3-zoning-districts-23oct25.pdf [https://perma.cc/EZD2-NUMV].

That zoning designation allows only homes that are "single-family detached dwellings," defined as "a residential building containing not more than one dwelling unit to be occupied by one family, not physically attached to any other principal structure." Unified Dev. Ordinance § 10.5, https://currituckcountync.gov/wp-content/uploads/chapter-10-definitions-measurement-23oct25.pdf [https://perma.cc/9SCL-J48C]. But while hotels, bed and breakfasts, and other commercial properties are forbidden, the Ordinance doesn't limit the use of such single-family homes. So owners may rent out their properties on Airbnb and similar platforms. Unified Dev. Ordinance § 3.4.4.

LeTendre sought approval from multiple state and county agencies to construct a vacation home, the Chesapeake, on the lot. As designed, the Chesapeake is gargantuan, boasting 24 bedrooms, 25 bathrooms, and a pool.

Under a North Carolina state agency regulation for coastal properties, a development may be set back 60 feet from the shoreline only if all structures on the property are less than 5,000 square feet apiece. See 15A N.C. Admin. Code 7H.0306(a)(3)(A). Otherwise, the development must sit farther back from the shore. Id.

LeTendre wanted to build 60 feet from the shore. So her architect designed the home to have a central area and two side wings, each structurally independent of each other and less than 5,000 square feet. The side wings are perpendicular to the central area and connected to it by enclosed, air-conditioned hallways, so the home is U-shaped.

LeTendre submitted her plans to the Currituck County Planning Director, who confirmed that the Chesapeake is a single-family detached dwelling and that it "complies with the county's [Ordinance]." J.A. 97. But LeTendre's neighbors, the Longs, appealed that determination to the Currituck County Board of Adjustment. The Board affirmed that the Chesapeake was a single-family detached dwelling under the Ordinance.

The Longs then appealed the Board's decision in state court. That court too agreed that the Chesapeake was a single-family detached dwelling under the Ordinance, and the Longs again appealed.

In the meantime, the County issued LeTendre a building permit. But LeTendre ran into a wrinkle with the North Carolina Department of Insurance, which classified the Chesapeake as a hotel. LeTendre appealed that classification to the Building Code Council, a state agency empowered by statute to administer and amend the North Carolina State Building Code, the state's compendium of zoning rules. See N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 143-141, 143-138(d); see also Greene v. City of Winston-Salem, 287 N.C. 66, 213 S.E.2d 231, 237 (1975). North Carolina law also gives the Council "the duty . . . to give interpretations of such provisions of the Building Code as shall be pertinent to the matter at issue." N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-141(b).

The Council reversed the Department of Insurance and determined that "the proper occupancy classification for the project is that of 'one and two family dwelling' as defined in Section 101.2 of the [North Carolina Residential Code]." J.A. 249.

Meanwhile, the Longs pursued their Board appeal before the North Carolina Court of Appeals. That court agreed with the Longs that the Chesapeake wasn't a "single-family detached dwelling" under the Ordinance. Long, 787 S.E.2d at 841.

The Long court explained that "[t]he ordinance allows only for a singular building." Id. at 839. And it found that the Chesapeake is made up of three buildings—the main building and two side buildings. Id.

The court acknowledged that this alone wasn't dispositive because "the [Ordinance's] definition of Single Family Dwelling clearly allows more than one 'building' or 'structure' to be constructed on the same lot," so long as there's no more than one "principal structure." Id. at 840. As an example, it explained that a homeowner could place a small pool house or a shed on her property if it was an "accessory structure" subordinate in square footage to the main building. Id. But since the Chesapeake's side wings are the same square footage as the main area, they functioned as three principal structures and violated the Ordinance. Id. at 840-41.

By this point, construction on the Chesapeake was 95% complete. After the appeals court ruling, the County issued a stop work order and, later, a Notice of Violation, which instructed LeTendre to modify the Chesapeake's structure to comply with the Ordinance. LeTendre responded with new building plans, which were essentially identical to the original plans. The County determined that the new plans still violated the Ordinance.

LeTendre then sued the County in state court, seeking injunctive relief, and ultimately a declaratory judgment preventing the County from enforcing Long's mandate. She alleged that the Ordinance was unconstitutional, under both the North Carolina and federal constitutions, and otherwise violated state law.

The state court held that LeTendre was likely to succeed on the merits of her claims and granted her a preliminary injunction. It ordered the County to rescind its stop work order, so LeTendre could finish construction, which she did in the summer of 2017.

The County and the Longs then appealed, and the North Carolina Court of Appeals reversed. Letendre v. Currituck County, 259 N.C.App. 512, 817 S.E.2d 73, 107 (2018).

The Court of Appeals held that LeTendre wasn't likely to succeed on the merits of her claims, and that Long established that her home wasn't a single-family detached dwelling under the Ordinance. Id. at 87. The court rejected LeTendre's claim based on the Building Code Council decision. Id. at 99. Though the Council found that the Chesapeake was a "one family dwelling" under state law, the court held that its decision didn't impact the County's application of its Ordinance. Id.

LeTendre sought further review, but the Supreme Court of North Carolina denied her petition for a writ of certiorari. Letendre v. Currituck County, 372 N.C. 54, 822 S.E.2d 641 (2019) (Mem.).

B.

But everything changed on July 11, 2019, when the North Carolina legislature enacted Session Law 2019-111. 2019 N.C. Sess. Laws 111. That law amended a provision of the North Carolina zoning law, by adding the following italicized language:

A county may not use a definition of building, dwelling, dwelling unit, bedroom, or sleeping unit that is inconsistent with any definition of the same in another statute or in a rule adopted by the State agency, including the State Building Code Council.

See 2019 N.C. Sess. Laws 111 § 1.17.(a). And it changed the prohibition against county definitions that are "more expansive than" the corresponding state definitions, to prohibit county definitions that are "inconsistent with" the State's. Compare N.C. Gen. Stat. § 153A-346(b) (amended 2019), with 2019 N.C. Sess. Laws 111 § 1.17.(a).³

Shortly after the amendment passed, the County again sued LeTendre in state court, seeking to compel her to modify the Chesapeake so that it complied with the Ordinance. LeTendre removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction.

LeTendre also counterclaimed, alleging that she was entitled to a declaratory judgment that the 20...