Raleigh supports Rockingham Co. standing argument in casino case

North Carolina’s capital city is siding with Rockingham County in a case at the state Supreme Court. The county is asking the high court to reject a lawsuit challenging a controversial casino-related rezoning.

The court issued an order Thursday accepting a friend-of-the-court brief from the city of Raleigh.

The 24-page brief does not address the Rockingham County casino debate that prompted the lawsuit. Instead lawyers representing the capital city supported the county’s arguments that the case’s plaintiffs lacked legal standing to pursue the case.

“Raleigh is one of the fastest growing cities in the United States,” the city’s lawyers wrote. “The City is also among the country’s leaders in new construction and is adding more jobs than 99% of other metropolitan areas. Because of this explosive growth, the Raleigh City Council adopted multiple legislative zoning amendments to its Unified Development Ordinance (the ‘UDO’) to help alleviate the pressure and accommodate new residents and businesses by streamlining development processes to, inter alia, keep housing and other costs more affordable.”

“Due to the increase in residents, projects, and development options, the number of requests for approvals has increased exponentially, with thousands of decisions being made each year,” Raleigh’s lawyers added.

“In short, Raleigh is changing, and while some embrace that change, others are adamantly opposed,” the brief explained. “This has led to more zoning litigation than ever before, both by quasi-judicial appeals and civil lawsuits. These cases contest the City’s decisions to approve projects and/or UDO changes that, among other things, allow more density, building types and/or land uses.”

“The inconsistency in standing law has made defending, and even making, legislative decisions more difficult,” Raleigh’s lawyers argued. “At times, the City is informed before a legislative decision is even made that litigation will be forthcoming.”

“It is, thus, critical to the City of Raleigh, and other local governments to: 1) be able to rely on a consistent standing test that mandates some identifiable injury to nearby property owners, which should be special damages, before a plaintiff can file a lawsuit and put important land use decisions in limbo for years; and 2) have predictability when asserting a standing defense, so lower courts cannot choose between different standards depending on the facts of the case and the project being challenged,” the brief added.

Rockingham County’s lawyers explained in a July 20 brief why they believe the state Supreme Court should throw out the rezoning lawsuit.

The court issued an order last month agreeing to hear the case, Camp Carefree v. Rockingham County. A unanimous state Appeals Court panel ruled in July 2025 that the suit from rezoning opponents could move forward.

The county’ opening brief emphasized a 1976 court precedent, Taylor v. Raleigh, which “discussed the standard for determining standing in a legislative zoning challenge.”

“This Court should reverse the Court of Appeals’ decision as the law in North Carolina has been consistent for a number of years since this Court’s decision in Taylor … requiring a showing of special damages to challenge a legislative zoning decision,” the county’s attorneys wrote. “Holding to the contrary would significantly increase litigation involving legislative rezoning by permitting anyone in the vicinity of the questioned property, without alleging special damages, to file a complaint under the Declaratory Judgment Act to contest any legislative rezoning decision.”

“Such a result will hamper the ability of local governments to make such zoning decisions, delay the ability to enforce such zoning decisions and impede the ability of landowners to have free use of their land,” the brief argued.

“Moreover, the Court of Appeals’ holding is contrary to the legal principle that courts give great deference to legislative rezoning decisions,” the county’s lawyers added. “If there is a legislative zoning decision to permit schools, community centers or other public use buildings, should any person resisting the change be entitled to bring suit under the DJA?”

“Permitting such suits, without showing special damages, would inevitably entangle such legislative actions in the courts because the neighboring property owners want things to stay the same, preventing the property owner’s full use of his land and burdening the courts with excessive litigation,” the brief continued.

The dispute over a 192-acre rezoning stemmed from local debate in 2023 over a proposed casino.

The high court issued a June 18 order agreeing to hear the case. Justice Phil Berger Jr. did not take part in the decision. His brother Kevin is a Rockingham County commissioner.

A trial judge dismissed the lawsuit from the Camp Carefree summer camp, Kalo Food bakery, and nine individual neighboring property owners in April 2024. But a unanimous three-judge state Appeals Court panel ruled in July 2025 that the case could move forward.

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

Rezoning critics filed suit in October 2023. They are asking state courts to throw out two amendments to Rockingham County’s development ordinance. One changes the affected property’s zoning from “residential agricultural” to “highway commercial.” The other added permitted uses in the county’s “highway commercial” district.

Rockingham County commissioners made the changes as debate took place in Raleigh over permitting new casinos in North Carolina.

“With the adoption of the Text Amendment, electronic gaming operations and State Licensed Uses are now allowed by right in a Highway Commercial district,” Collins explained. “Additional uses now permitted by right in a Highway Commercial district include dry cleaning facilities, crematories, fertilizer manufacturers, hotels, fairgrounds, hospitals, landfills for hazardous and industrial waste, and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities.”

Camp Carefree’s managing board member raised concerns in the lawsuit about the potential impact on children with chronic illnesses who use the camp during the summer. The bakery’s owner raised traffic concerns. Individual neighbors cited issues involving potential water contamination, increased noise and light from additional traffic, potential trespassing, and other criminal activity.

“Because these amendments were ‘legislative, not quasi-judicial, Plaintiff[s] w[ere] not required to allege special damages within [their] complaint, separate and distinct from the general community,’” Collins wrote. “Accordingly, so long as Plaintiffs in this case sufficiently alleged that they were ‘affected by’ Defendant Rockingham County’s decision to rezone the Property, Plaintiffs have standing to seek a declaratory judgment to clarify their legal rights and relations.”

Rezoning “completely changed” the targeted property’s permitted uses, Collins explained.

“While the purpose of the Residential Agriculture district is the ‘preservation and conservation of rural lands throughout the county where low density is desirable in order to protect environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural areas, and viewsheds,’ the Highway Commercial district is ‘designed to protect and encourage the transitional character of the districts’ and to provide ‘areas for more intensive regional highway-oriented business, office, service and civil use.’ Furthermore, the Highway Commercial district allows for the development of industry that is not consistent with agricultural use–such as electronic gaming operations, dry-cleaning facilities, research laboratories, hotels, hospitals, multi-family apartments and condominiums, crematoriums, radio stations, and billboards,” the Appeals Court opinion continued.

Before Rockingham County’s text amendment, “the following uses were not permitted by right in Highway Commercial districts: electronic gaming operations, dry cleaning facilities, crematories, fertilizer manufacturers, hotels, fairgrounds, hospitals, landfills for hazardous and industrial waste, and wastewater collection, treatment and disposal facilities,” Collins wrote. “After the Text Amendment, all these uses are now permitted by right in Highway Commercial districts, including on the Property.”

“Additionally, there are now no development standards, temporary use restrictions, or special use permits required for these uses on the Property,” she added.

“Here Plaintiffs’ properties are either abutting or in close proximity to the rezoned Property and ‘a plaintiff’s proximity to the rezoned property is a factor our Courts have considered,’” Collins wrote. “[E]ach Plaintiff has clearly alleged how the Rezoning Legislation would directly and negatively affect them.”

Appeals Court Judges Donna Stroud and Valerie Zachary joined Collins’ decision.

“Raleigh supports Rockingham Co. standing argument in casino case” was originally published on www.carolinajournal.com.