Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Dobo v. ZON. BD. OF ADJUST. OF WILMINGTON

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 16, 2002No. COA01-249Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTyson, Judge

I concur in the result reached by the majority in parts I, IIB, and IIC of their opinion. I respectfully dissent from part IIA of the majority’s opinion as I would hold that petitioners’ actual use of the Wood-Mizer portable band saw does not violate the Zoning Ordinance.

IIA.

Petitioners argue that the Board’s decision was not supported by competent evidence, and is arbitrary and capricious. I agree. Section 19-6 of the Zoning Ordinance defines the term “accessory use”:

Accessory use or structure: A use or structure on the same lot with, and of a nature customarily incidental and subordinate…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Yancey v. HeafnerSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1966
  2. Tucker v. Mecklenburg County Zoning Board of AdjustmentCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2001
  3. City of Sanford v. Dandy Signs, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 1983
  4. C.C. & J. Enterprises, Inc. v. City of AshevilleCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API