Donnelly v. Board of Adjustment of Village of Pinehurst
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
1Dissent
Judge EAGLES
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. As the majority notes, when interpreting zoning ordinances, we should give words their ordinary meaning and significance. Penny v. Durham, 249 N.C. 596, 600, 107 S.E.2d 72, 76 (1959). The ordinary meaning and significance of “access to abutting property” as used in the ordinance’s definition of a “street” is not satisfied by mere “visual access or being able to look at or onto the property.” In this context “access” means the right to ingress and egress without restriction. Dept. of Transportation v. Craine, 89 N.C. App. 223, 229, 365 S.E.2d 694,…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Penny v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
- Department of Transportation v. CraineCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988