Legal Opinion

Heery v. Town of Highlands Zoning Board of Adjustment

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided April 5, 1983No. 8230SC471PublishedCited by 26 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

HEDRICK, Judge.

Respondents contend that petitioners lacked standing to seek review of the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-388(e) authorizes an “aggrieved party” to seek review of board of adjustment decisions made under zoning ordinances. Thus, petitioners had standing only if they were aggrieved persons within the meaning of the statute.

Earlier versions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-388, which contained review provisions similar to the present statute, were interpreted to mean that “the appealing party must have some interest in the property affected.” Pigford v.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Jackson v. Guilford County Board of AdjustmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
  2. Taylor v. City of RaleighSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1976
  3. Pigford v. BOARD OF ADJ. OF CITY OF KINSTONCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1980

3Cited by26 opinions

  1. County of Lancaster v. Mecklenburg CountySupreme Court of North Carolina · 1993
  2. Village Creek Property Owners' Ass'n v. Town of EdentonCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1999
  3. Sarda v. City/County of Durham Board of AdjustmentCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2003
  4. Bailey & Associates, Inc. v. Wilmington Board of AdjustmentCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2010
  5. Cook v. Union Zoning Bd. of AdjustmentCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 2007

21 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