Legal Opinion · Dissent

Hensley v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural Resources

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided November 17, 2009No. COA08-1307Published

1Dissent

STEELMAN,

Judge dissenting.

I must respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to reverse the trial court’s order granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The fundamental purpose of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 113A-57(1) is to control the effects of sedimentation resulting from land-disturbing activities. Based upon a proper application of this principal, respondent issued a variance to Mountain Air, and the trial court properly affirmed respondent.

I. Additional Factual and Procedural Background

Before undertaking this project, Mountain Air obtained a Clean. Water Act § 401 Water Quality…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Quick v. QuickSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1982
  2. Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment of Union CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1986
  3. Atlantic Coast Mechanical, Inc. v. Arcadis, Geraghty & Miller of North Carolina, Inc.Court of Appeals of North Carolina · 2006
  4. County of Durham v. North Carolina Department of Environment & Natural ResourcesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1998
  5. Rainey v. North Carolina Department of Public InstructionSupreme Court of North Carolina · 2007

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API