Farr v. Board of Adjustment

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Farr v. Board of Adjustment

340 S.E.2d 521, 79 N.C. App. 754, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2125

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 18, 1986

DocketNo. 847SC10

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 340 S.E.2d 521 (Farr v. Board of Adjustment) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Farr v. Board of Adjustment, 340 S.E.2d 521, 79 N.C. App. 754, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2125 (N.C. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinions

PHILLIPS, Judge.

As directed by the above decision, we have given further consideration to the contentions made by the appellant in this Court that were not discussed in the decision reported in 73 N.C. App. 228, 326 S.E. 2d 382 (1985) and are of the opinion that those contentions are without merit and should be overruled. But even if the zoning ordinance in question applies to the case, and the record as we read it does not show that it was enacted before the prior property owner built the building involved, we are still of the opinion that the ordinance is unconstitutional for the reasons stated in our prior decision and that the judgment appealed from should be vacated.

Vacated.

Judge BECTON concurs. Chief Judge Hedrick dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PHILLIPS, Judge.

As directed by the above decision, we have given further consideration to the contentions made by the appellant in this Court that were not discussed in the decision reported in 73 N.C. App. 228, 326 S.E. 2d 382 (1985) and are of the opinion that those contentions are without merit and should be overruled. But even if the zoning ordinance in question applies to the case, and the record as we read it does not show that it was enacted before the prior property owner built the building involved, we are still of the opinion that the ordinance is unconstitutional for the reasons stated in our prior decision and that the judgment appealed from should be vacated.

Vacated.

Judge BECTON concurs. Chief Judge Hedrick dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

340 S.E.2d 521, 79 N.C. App. 754, 1986 N.C. App. LEXIS 2125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/farr-v-board-of-adjustment-ncctapp-1986.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack