Winter 2010
Editors:
William J. Brian, Jr.
bill.brian@klgates.com
+1.919.466.1261
Eric M. Braun
eric.braun@klgates.com
+1.919.743.7386 – Raleigh
+1.919.466.1263 – RTP
From the Editors
This newsletter focuses on two primary trends, revisions by local governments of
their land development regulations and the limitations imposed by courts on the
ability of state and local governments to regulate land development. Many local
governments are taking advantage of the lull in development-related applications to
revise their development regulations, and often these efforts result in more restrictive
regulations. However, recent state court decisions indicate a willingness to rein in
governmental authority to regulate land use. In anticipation of a healthier economy
and increased development activity, developers should be aware of the shifting
regulatory landscape.
____________________________
In this issue:
North Carolina Appeals Court
Strikes Down Union County
School Facilities Ordinance
Update: Durham's Form-Based
Zoning Elements
“Sustainable Growth We Can
Afford” - Morrisville Mayor Jackie
Holcombe’s Vision
Inclusionary Zoning: A Primer
Update: Raleigh's New Unified
Development Ordinance
Reminder: Permits, Plats and
Plans Extended
Durham City and County Propose
Increased Environmental
Protections for Durham’s Unified
Development Ordinance
Court of Appeals Considers
NCDOT Authority to Require OffSite Improvements
Raleigh Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Process
Attorneys Join Triangle Land Use,
Planning and Zoning Practice
K&L Gates includes lawyers practicing
out of 35 offices located in North
America, Europe, Asia and the Middle
East, and represents numerous GLOBAL
500, FORTUNE 100, and FTSE 100
corporations, in addition to growth and
middle market companies,
entrepreneurs, capital market
participants and public sector entities.
For more information, visit
www.klgates.com.
We hope you find this edition of the Triangle Land Use Newsletter to be of interest
and we welcome any feedback (email bill.brian@klgates.com or
eric.braun@klgates.com).
______________________________________________________________
North Carolina Appeals Court Strikes Down Union County
School Facilities Ordinance
Eric M. Braun and James L. Joyce
This past December, a panel of the North Carolina Court of Appeals struck down a
Union County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance (APFO) as being outside the
County’s statutory authority.
The Union County ordinance compared a proposed development’s size with
estimated school capacities, and if the County determined that the development
would overburden the schools, the proposal would either be denied, delayed, or
redesigned, or the developer would have to construct new facilities or make a
voluntary payment to the County. A group of homebuilders and developers
challenged the ordinance in 2006, but the trial court upheld the ordinance. The
homebuilders and developers appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals,
which reversed the trial court and struck down the ordinance.
Although the opinion authored by Judge Barbara Jackson noted that the provision of
schools is one of the permissible aims of zoning regulation, it ruled that the means
used to achieve those objectives are limited to the methods explicitly outlined in the
zoning enabling statute. Likewise, while the subdivision statute allows counties to
require the construction of community service facilities in accordance with county
plans and to reserve school sites, the Court of Appeals ruled that a county can not
enforce a land use ordinance that may require a developer to pay money, donate land,
or provide for school construction.
Triangle Land Use Newsletter
In addition, the court viewed this ordinance as an
attempt to circumvent its 2006 decision in Durham
Land Owners Association v. County of Durham. In
Durham Land Owners, the court emphasized that
counties are ultimately responsible for the provision
of school facilities, and can not delegate a portion of
that responsibility through the imposition of impact
fees. In the Union County decision, the court
likened Union County’s APFO to the ordinance
rejected in Durham Land Owners, in that it
impermissibly shifted “a portion of the burden for
funding school construction onto developers,” and
was an attempt to obtain indirectly the kind of
payment that the court refused to allow counties to
obtain directly in Durham Land Owners.
The recent Union County decision suggests that the
current Court of Appeals will take a narrow view of
local government authority to regulate land
development, particularly where some element of
the ordinance involves a payment on the part of the
developer. Therefore, APFOs in other cities and
counties may likewise be vulnerable to legal attack
following the Court of Appeals’ ruling.
_____________________________________
Update: Durham’s Form-Based Zoning
Elements
Michael J. Ovsievsky and Craigie D. Sanders
At its February 1, 2010 public hearing, the Durham
City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance
amending the Durham City-County Unified
Development Ordinance (“UDO”). These changes
have been in the works for more than a year and will
significantly alter the look of downtown Durham
and the downtown Durham development process.
Aimed at creating a “flexible regulatory structure
that promotes development in the Downtown Tier
with a high priority on a pedestrian-oriented public
realm,” the amendments to the Durham UDO
include significant “form-based” zoning concepts
applicable to Durham’s downtown.
Unlike conventional zoning that focuses on a
separation of land uses, “form-based” zoning instead
focuses on the role that individual buildings serve in
shaping the streetscape and adjacent uses, and how
buildings relate to one another, pedestrian areas,
roads, and open spaces. Moreover, this type of
zoning allows for a mixture of land uses, provided
that the new development fits within the context of
the existing community. These concepts are more
compatible with the relatively recent focus on
urban, mixed use development.
Among the new changes to the Durham UDO are:
1. The establishment of a Downtown Design
(“DD”) District aimed at “encouraging intense
development and pedestrian activity,” which is
then broken into three (3) sub-districts: (i) Core
(highest, most dense urban development with a
focus on vertical development and uses), (ii)
Support 1 (moderate intensity also focused on a
mixed use urban environment, while respecting
adjacent development), and (iii) Support 2
(intended to provide transition at the edge of the
District to less intense, often residential,
development). Each sub-district has established
standards for building height and upper story
step-backs, ratios of building height to street
width, and building placement on the site.
2. The unification of uses permitted in the DD
District. In general, uses that can be
accommodated in higher density developments
are allowed in the DD District, such as
residential, community services, commercial
and retail, offices, and hotels, while uses that
are land intensive, with minimal activity, are
prohibited.
3. The establishment of certain requirements
applicable to the DD District that can be viewed
as addressing the growing importance of
sustainability in urban development, including,
e.g., additional standards for trash handling,
revised landscaping provisions and standards
for street trees and vehicular use areas, and
revised provisions for bicycle parking in
downtown.
Among the benefits resulting from the Durham
UDO changes should be greater predictability and a
smoother application and project review process for
downtown Durham real estate projects.
With the recent approval by the City Council of
these changes to its UDO, Durham finds itself at the
forefront of a growing list of cities that have been
investigating and, in certain cases such as in the
City of Miami, transitioning from a conventional
zoning scheme to one which is form-based. The
Winter 2010
2
Triangle Land Use Newsletter
recent amendments to the Durham UDO are not
likely to be the end of similar zoning changes in and
around the Triangle. For example, as part of the
implementation of its 2030 Comprehensive Plan, the
City of Raleigh is currently undertaking a process to
develop a new development code, which will also
take the form of a UDO. Discussion has already
begun about the extent to which form-based zoning
concepts will be part of this new UDO.
_____________________________________
“Sustainable Growth We Can Afford” –
Morrisville Mayor Jackie Holcombe’s
Vision
Holcombe is going to be sensitive to development
plans that have the potential of causing additional
problems for the Town’s already overburdened
transportation infrastructure. We were relieved to
hear that Mayor Holcombe is very aware of the
criticisms that the development community has
made of the cumbersome development review
process in Morrisville. While not ready to concede
that a greater number of site plans will be reviewed
and approved at the staff level, she is committed to
ensuring that the process becomes more predictable,
efficient and effective.
In sum, Mayor Holcombe wants to see “sustainable
growth we can afford.”
Jason L. Barron
Last year’s local elections ushered in a wave of
changes in the Triangle. In Wake County, although
most of the attention was paid to the board of
education races, there was a changing of the guard in
some other key places. Included among those was
the Town of Morrisville, which added three new
members to its Town Council, including Mayor
Jackie Holcombe. We had the chance to catch up
with Mayor Holcombe recently to discuss her
agenda for the next couple of years, specifically as it
relates to planning and development matters.
Like most places, the Town is going to be very
focused on its budget and, specifically, how the
Town is spending taxpayer money. In fact, it was a
proposed 19% tax increase by the prior
administration that galvanized Mayor Holcombe’s
decision to seek a return to the Council, this time as
mayor. In addition, there will be greater
transparency in the governing process in Morrisville,
with a special emphasis paid to looking for ways to
get more folks involved in the Town’s policy
formation process.
From a planning and development standpoint,
Mayor Holcombe wants to preserve the small town
feel of Morrisville, adding that realizing the
objectives of the Town’s recently adopted Town
Center Plan is going to play a key part in that
process. Each development proposal that comes
forward will be carefully reviewed to ensure that
critical stormwater measures are implemented
during the development process. Additionally,
given the Town’s central Triangle location, Mayor
We appreciate Mayor Holcombe sharing her time
with us and look forward to working with her in the
future.
_____________________________________
Inclusionary Zoning: A Primer
Michael Birch and James L. Joyce
Many Triangle-area local governments are currently
revising their development regulations, and one
policy option that they are considering is
inclusionary zoning. For instance, the Town of
Chapel Hill is currently in the process of public
review of a draft ordinance that would replace the
Town’s current inclusionary zoning program, and
the City of Raleigh is considering the incorporation
of inclusionary zoning elements in its new Unified
Development Ordinance.
What is inclusionary zoning?
Inclusionary zoning is a regulatory tool designed to
encourage the provision of affordable housing.
Most inclusionary zoning ordinances in North
Carolina are voluntary, in that they encourage
developers to “set aside” some new homes as
affordable (however the ordinance defines
affordability) through the use of various
development incentives, including density bonuses,
reduced development fees, or relaxed development
restrictions. In some cases, however, inclusionary
zoning set-asides are mandatory.
Where is inclusionary zoning in place?
The Towns of Davidson, Manteo, Chapel Hill, Kill
Devil Hills, Carrboro, the City of Wilmington,
Winter 2010
3
Triangle Land Use Newsletter
Orange and Dare Counties, and the WinstonSalem/Forsyth combined planning area all have
some form of inclusionary zoning. The ordinance in
effect in each area is slightly different, and thus
offers different opportunities and constraints.
What is the legal status of inclusionary zoning?
Several North Carolina municipalities have received
explicit authorization from the General Assembly to
offer density bonuses for the voluntary production of
affordable housing, but for other areas the legal
authority to engage in inclusionary zoning is less
certain. Although the authority to engage in
inclusionary zoning could arguably be implied from
the zoning, subdivision, or police powers, it is
unlikely that such authority would actually be
implied by a North Carolina court, particularly in
light of the Court of Appeals’ recent decision in
Union Land Owners Association v. Union County.
What’s next?
As noted above, several local governments have
received special state legislation to adopt incentivebased inclusionary zoning programs. Many
jurisdictions have also attempted to obtain local
legislation to implement mandatory inclusionary
zoning ordinances; but, these attempts have not been
successful. Going forward, developers and
homebuilders should be aware of whether the
jurisdictions in which they do business are
considering any form of inclusionary zoning.
K&L Gates attorneys in the Raleigh and Research
Triangle Park offices are monitoring this issue, and
will continue to alert you when Triangle-area local
governments are considering adopting inclusionary
zoning programs.
_____________________________________
Update: Raleigh’s New Unified
Development Ordinance
Mack A. Paul IV and Michael Birch
Now that the 2030 Comprehensive Plan has been
adopted, the City of Raleigh is moving forward with
its overhaul of the City’s development regulations.
Code Studio, the consulting firm hired to lead this
effort, has already held public input sessions and is
currently reviewing the existing zoning and
subdivision regulations. The next few months of the
process will be indicative of what the new unified
development ordinance (“UDO”) will include and
how it will change the land development process.
Regardless of the specifics, the upcoming changes
to the current regulations will impact the costs
associated with land development, and the
development community and property owners
should be involved from the start.
In October 2009, the consultants began the publicinput portion of the process. Code Studio held three
public listening sessions and twelve stakeholder
sessions. These meetings focused on what the
community viewed as “good” and “bad” aspects of
the current development code. The comments
received from these meetings were taken into
account by Code Studio as they performed a critical
assessment of the existing development regulations.
Code Studio reviewed the current ordinances, the
current development review process and the 2030
Comprehensive Plan policies in order to identify the
shortcomings of the existing regulations and
determine how the existing regulations can be
improved to foster a more efficient, transparent and
dependable process. They also analyzed the best
practices implemented by cities that recently
underwent a major code rewrite. Having recently
completed this assessment, Code Studio produced a
“Diagnostic and Approach Report” on February 1,
2010. This report is currently being circulated for
comment, and a revised version will be presented to
the City Council in March. After reviewing this
report, the City Council is expected to formally
direct City Staff and Code Studio as to the general
“coding approach” to take.
While the Planning Commission will serve as the
primary advisory body, the City Council recently
appointed a 13-member UDO Advisory Group.
This board includes representatives from citizen
advisory councils and neighborhood groups, city
commissions, environmental interest groups,
affordable housing interest groups, developers,
business groups and land use attorneys. This
diverse group will play an integral role in reviewing
the consultant’s reports and drafts of the UDO. Eric
Braun, a partner in the Raleigh and Research
Triangle Park offices of K&L Gates, was the only
land use attorney appointed to the UDO Advisory
Group.
Winter 2010
4
Triangle Land Use Newsletter
The impact of the new UDO cannot be overstated.
Raleigh’s present development regulations have
been in place for almost thirty years without
substantial changes. The new UDO will alter the
land development practices and procedures that
many have grown accustomed to over the years, and
it will guide development in Raleigh for the
foreseeable future. K&L Gates will continue to be
involved in this process, both formally through the
UDO Advisory Group, and informally through
stakeholder meetings, and will inform you of the
latest developments in this process.
The Diagnostic and Approach Report can be found
at:
http://www.raleighnc.gov/publications/Planning/Pla
ns_in_Process/New_Development_Code/NRC_Diag
nostic_and_Approach_Report.pdf
_____________________________________
Reminder: Permits, Plats and Plans
Extended
Eric M. Braun and Jason L. Barron
Last year, the North Carolina General Assembly
enacted Session Law 2009-406, “An Act to Extend
Certain Government Approvals Affecting the
Development of Real Property Within the State” (the
“Act”). Under the Act, the running of any
development approval that is current and valid at
any point between January 1, 2008 and December
31, 2010 is suspended during this time period. In
addition to extending development approvals, the
Act also revives those development approvals that
expired after January 1, 2008 but before the Act was
adopted on June 30, 2009.
The Act broadly defines “development approval” to
include sketch plans, preliminary plats, subdivision
plats, site plans, special use permits, conditional use
permits, and building permits. All state agency
approvals, except for North Carolina Department of
Transportation permits, are also extended by the Act.
Given the broad nature of the Act and the many
different jurisdictions it affects, unanticipated
consequences may arise when evaluating how an
extended permit may impact fees, infrastructure
installation and bonding requirements. For example,
an approval may be conditioned upon completing
infrastructure improvements by a certain date, or
posting a bond or guaranty. How are these
conditions affected by the Act? State agencies and
local governments may answer these questions
differently.
Since this legislation was enacted, K&L Gates
attorneys have worked closely with developers, as
well as state and local government officials
concerning the proper application and interpretation
of the Act.
_____________________________________
Durham City and County Propose
Increased Environmental Protections
for Durham’s Unified Development
Ordinance
William J. Brian and Patrick L. Byker
For more than a year, the Durham Planning
Department has been working on proposals to
increase the standards applicable to four items of
environmental concern: 1) Sedimentation and
Erosion Control; 2) Water Quality/Stream Buffers;
3) Site Preparation; and 4) Tree Protection and
Preservation. From late 2008 to mid-2009, a group
comprised of elected officials, environmental
activists, developers and engineering consultants
(“Steering Committee”) reviewed a multitude of
proposed “environmental enhancements” to
Durham’s Unified Development Ordinance
(“UDO”). Ultimately, the Steering Committee
endorsed 23 environmental enhancements to the
UDO within the four environmental areas of
concern.
For Sedimentation and Erosion Control, the
Steering Committee recommended that the UDO
require an erosion control plan, submitted and
stamped by a certified professional engineer, for any
land disturbance of 20,000 square feet or more.
Currently, the threshold for an erosion control plan
is one acre (43,560 square feet). Further, the
Steering Committee recommended mandating the
use of skimmers within stormwater BMPs, and
mandating stabilization (i.e., planting) of steep
slopes, traps and basins within seven days, and
moderate slopes within ten days, down from the
current requirement of 21 days.
Winter 2010
5
Triangle Land Use Newsletter
To address Water Quality and Stream Buffers, the
Steering Committee recommended increasing stream
buffer widths so that all perennial and intermittent
streams within the Rural and Suburban Tiers will
have 100 foot buffers. The buffers on streams in the
Urban Tier will also be set at 100 feet, but that could
be reduced to 50 feet based on land availability. In
the Downtown and Compact Neighborhood Tiers,
the buffer widths would be 50 feet. In addition, the
Steering Committee recommended increasing from
25 feet to 50 feet the buffer required around any
wetland area greater than one acre.
In regard to Site Preparation, the Steering
Committee recommended that “mass grading” be
defined in the UDO as “the grading of four acres or
more at one time to prepare land for construction.”
To that end, it recommended that the UDO be
amended to mandate what is known as “fingerprint”
grading for single-family residences built on lots of
10,000 square feet or greater. Under the fingerprint
grading regime, only areas to be used for roads,
utilities and up to 20 feet in excess of the foundation
area may be graded. In addition, projects meeting
this fairly restrictive definition of mass grading will
be required to submit a staged grading plan during
the construction drawing phase in order to obtain a
land disturbance permit. The Steering Committee
also recommended increasing land disturbance
buffers from 50 feet to 65 feet around the perimeter
of the four or more acres to be mass graded.
The Steering Committee also discussed clear cutting,
the typical precursor of mass grading. It proposed
that the UDO be amended to adopt the State
definition of forestry, and to require property owners
to register a State-approved Forestry Management
Plan (“FMP”) with the Planning Department prior to
any clear cutting. Further, the Steering Committee
recommended that the UDO require a clear cutting
permit to clear cut any area that is 12,000 square feet
or greater, if there is not a duly approved FMP or
site plan for such property. The approval process for
a clear cutting permit would follow the procedures
for a simplified site plan, which the Planning
Department approves administratively. The Steering
Committee also recommended that clear cutting
without these necessary approvals incur a violation
that necessitates revegetation of the clear cut
property.
Besides increased restrictions on clear cutting, the
Steering Committee focused on increased Tree
Protection and Preservation requirements. One
recommendation that might benefit property owners
and developers is to allow tree preservation credits
for smaller trees than the UDO currently allows.
Two other potentially beneficial recommendations
are to allow specific species of smaller, understory
trees to count towards tree replacement
requirements and to allow greater flexibility in the
width and size of tree protection areas. However,
the Steering Committee also recommended that the
UDO prohibit counting stormwater and utility
facilities as tree coverage area where such facilities
do not allow trees to grow. In addition, while today
the Urban Tier does not require tree coverage in
residential developments, the Steering Committee
recommended that residential developments in the
Urban Tier meet fifty percent of the tree coverage
required in the Suburban Tier.
Also, the Steering Committee recommended that the
definition of specimen trees be expanded from the
current version. Presently, the UDO defines a
specimen tree in the Suburban Tier as any hardwood
tree with a diameter of eighteen inches, and in the
Rural Tier, pine trees with a diameter of eighteen
inches are considered specimens as well. The
Steering Committee recommended that the UDO be
amended to define specimen trees as pines over
eighteen inches, hardwoods over fifteen inches and
North Carolina native hardwoods over ten inches, in
both the Rural and Suburban Tiers.
The cumulative impact of the Steering Committee’s
recommendations for increased buffering and tree
preservation reduces the usable acreage in a county
where developable land is already a scarce resource,
and may make higher density, transit-oriented
developments more challenging. Moreover,
Durham has a track record of requiring substantial
traffic improvements from new development, and it
may be difficult to achieve the residential density
and non-residential square footage necessary for
new development to pay for such traffic
improvements and meet these new environmental
requirements. Balancing those public goods will
provide challenges for all involved in the
development process.
Winter 2010
6
Triangle Land Use Newsletter
These proposed changes to the UDO will be moving
forward during the spring and summer of 2010. For
persons and companies involved in the development
process in Durham, it makes good sense to stay
informed about how these proposed regulations
move through the legislative process and how these
proposals will impact new development.
_____________________________________
Court of Appeals Considers NCDOT
Authority to Require Off-Site
Improvements
Mack A. Paul IV and Jason L. Barron
In a dispute that could dramatically alter the way
that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (“NCDOT”) has done business, the
North Carolina Court of Appeals is reviewing a case
that challenges the authority of NCDOT to require
off-site improvements as part of the driveway
permitting process. The case is High Rock Lake
Partners, LLC v. North Carolina Department of
Transportation, COA 09-95.
In the case, which was argued before the court of
appeals in the fall of 2009, the plaintiff sought
approval from Davidson County for the first phase
of a proposed 60-lot single-family residential
subdivision. During the County’s subdivision
review process, representatives from NCDOT, as
well as the North Carolina Railroad (there was an
on-grade crossing involved in the case), testified on
numerous occasions seeking denial of the
subdivision. The stated basis for the request for
denial was a perceived conflict between the
proposed subdivision and railroad operations.
NCDOT took the position that a bridge totaling in
excess of $3,000,000 was necessary in order to
avoid the perceived conflicts. While the subdivision
was pending, the developer sought approval from
NCDOT for its driveway permit. The permit
application was initially denied by the Division
Engineer, but later approved on appeal to the
NCDOT Driveway Permit Appeals Committee,
subject to a condition requiring the developer to
obtain consent from the North Carolina Railroad to
widen the on-grade crossing by ten (10) feet.
Ultimately, the developer appealed the NCDOT
Committee’s determination to superior court,
arguing, among other things, that NCDOT lacked
the statutory authority to require the widening of the
crossing due to the fact that such widening was an
offsite improvement. The superior court affirmed
and appeal was made to the court of appeals.
Relying on the enabling language of N.C. Gen. Stat.
Sec. 136-18(29), the developer argued that NCDOT
may only regulate the size, location, direction of
traffic flow, and the construction of driveway
connections. Further, the developer noted the clear
intent of the driveway permit statute was to shift the
burden of certain off-site improvements or exactions
onto developers - including acceleration and
deceleration lanes, traffic storage lanes and medians
- but only if traffic volume is an average of 4,000
vehicle trips or greater. Because the development in
question was going to generate only 32 trips per day
for its first phase, the developer argued that the
statutes do not give NCDOT the authority to require
off-site improvements.
In contrast, NCDOT argued that it has the general
authority to require the off-site improvements as
part of the authority granted to it by N.C. Gen. Stat.
Sec. 136-18(5), which permits NCDOT to “make
rules, regulations and ordinances for the use of, and
police traffic on, the State highways.”
A decision from the Court of Appeals is imminent.
Assuming the case is not decided on unrelated
procedural grounds, it is clear that the authority of
NCDOT to require off-site improvements could be
dramatically impacted by this decision. K&L Gates
continues to closely monitor this case, and will be
sure to send out an update once the decision is
published.
_____________________________________
Raleigh Comprehensive Plan
Amendment Process
The City of Raleigh Planning Department is now
accepting petitions to amend the 2030
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map.
Petitions will be heard twice per year, at the January
and July joint public hearings of the City Council
and Planning Commission. In order to be heard at
the July public hearing, petitions should be
submitted to the Planning Department no later than
May 1, 2010. Although there is no official deadline,
petitions received after the published notice of the
Winter 2010
7
Triangle Land Use Newsletter
July hearing will be heard at the January 2011 joint
public hearing.
_____________________________________
Attorneys Join Triangle Land Use,
Planning and Zoning Practice
Keith Anthony: Keith is an experienced
commercial litigator who represents clients in a
variety of complex commercial matters, including
contract disputes, licensing issues, real estate
disputes, business torts, and unfair and deceptive
trade practices. In addition to these types of matters,
Keith is now regularly representing property owners
and developers in land use related disputes. He
works out of the firm’s Research Triangle Park
office. Keith is a graduate of the University of
Virginia and the University of North Carolina
School of Law.
James Joyce: Jim is the newest associate to join the
K&L Gates land use team. Jim’s practice involves
land use and zoning, as well as environmental
matters. He assists developers, property owners, and
businesses with the entitlement process, and related
land use litigation and environmental compliance.
He is a graduate of the University of North Carolina
at Chapel Hill and the University of Virginia School
of Law. Jim also holds a Master of Community
Planning from the University of Maryland-College
Park.
Anchorage Austin Beijing Berlin Boston Charlotte Chicago Dallas Dubai Fort Worth Frankfurt Harrisburg Hong Kong London
Los Angeles Miami Moscow Newark New York Orange County Palo Alto Paris Pittsburgh Portland Raleigh Research Triangle Park
San Diego San Francisco Seattle Shanghai Singapore Spokane/Coeur d’Alene Taipei Tokyo Washington, D.C.
K&L Gates includes lawyers practicing out of 35 offices located in North America, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, and represents numerous
GLOBAL 500, FORTUNE 100, and FTSE 100 corporations, in addition to growth and middle market companies, entrepreneurs, capital market
participants and public sector entities. For more information, visit www.klgates.com.
K&L Gates is comprised of multiple affiliated entities: a limited liability partnership with the full name K&L Gates LLP qualified in Delaware and
maintaining offices throughout the United States, in Berlin and Frankfurt, Germany, in Beijing (K&L Gates LLP Beijing Representative Office), in
Dubai, U.A.E., in Shanghai (K&L Gates LLP Shanghai Representative Office), in Tokyo, and in Singapore; a limited liability partnership (also named
K&L Gates LLP) incorporated in England and maintaining offices in London and Paris; a Taiwan general partnership (K&L Gates) maintaining an
office in Taipei; a Hong Kong general partnership (K&L Gates, Solicitors) maintaining an office in Hong Kong; and a Delaware limited liability
company (K&L Gates Holdings, LLC) maintaining an office in Moscow. K&L Gates maintains appropriate registrations in the jurisdictions in which its
offices are located. A list of the partners or members in each entity is available for inspection at any K&L Gates office.
This publication is for informational purposes and does not contain or convey legal advice. The information herein should not be used or relied upon
in regard to any particular facts or circumstances without first consulting a lawyer.
©2010 K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Winter 2010
8