• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

Zoning Writ of certiorari for a variance appeal

AG74683

Cyburbian
Messages
7,154
Points
40
I just saw this Writ of Certiorari for a variance appeal. Apparently the lawyer these folks are using is based out of a land use specific firm. In the writ, the attorney references NCGS 160A-88 as a basis for some argument he is making.

1) 160A (at least for now) is the chapter for cities/towns enabling statutes. We are a county....we use 153A. I should mention that there is ONE caveat, and that's for Board of Adjustment stuff.
2) 160A-88 is "reserved for future codification purposes". It literally does not exist, and never will since 160A is set to go away entirely come July 1st, 2021. That said, the enabling statute is 388, so I assume the attorney just had an unfortunate typo.

They also referenced that our zoning code states that "special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the property, structure, or building involved" and that we erroneously failed to consider the interior layout of the building and "unusual" saw tooth design of the existing deck. We changed that portion of our code in 2017 to match state statute exactly that references nothing about the building and only hardships peculiar to the property like topography, size or location. The structure isn't considered at all anymore.

I'm glad I'll never have to deal with this type of stuff again. What a waste of time.
 
Last edited:

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,174
Points
51
I just saw this Writ of Certiorari for a variance appeal. Apparently the lawyer these folks are using is based out of a land use specific firm. In the writ, the attorney references NCGS 160A-88 as a basis for some argument he is making.

1) 160A (at least for now) is the chapter for cities/towns enabling statutes. We are a county....we use 153A. I should mention that there is ONE caveat, and that's for Board of Adjustment stuff.
2) 160A-88 is "reserved for future codification purposes". It literally does not exist, and never will since 160A is set to go away entirely come July 1st, 2021. That said, the enabling statute is 388, so I assume the attorney just had an unfortunate typo.

They also referenced that our zoning code states that "special conditions and circumstances exist which are peculiar to the property, structure, or building involved" and that we erroneously failed to consider the interior layout of the building and "unusual" saw tooth design of the existing deck. We changed that portion of our code in 2017 to match state statute exactly that references nothing about the building and only hardships peculiar to the property like topography, size or location. The structure isn't considered at all anymore.

I'm glad I'll never have to deal with this type of stuff again. What a waste of time.
Most of 160A is already gone. One of the orders that the Governor signed this summer fast tracked 160D taking effect. https://canons.sog.unc.edu/chapter-160d-now-effective/
 
Top