Legal Opinion · Dissent

Donnelly v. Board of Adjustment of Village of Pinehurst

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Decided August 7, 1990No. 8920SC607Published

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

  1. Penny v. City of DurhamSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1959
  2. Department of Transportation v. CraineCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API