Issue

Unified development ordinance—notice of violation—description of alleged zoning violations—insufficient

Summary

After a flea market (plaintiff) was issued a notice of violation (NOV) stating that its property violated a city Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) by failing to comply with an approved site plan, a decision by the Court of Appeals holding that the NOV was properly issued was reversed and the case was remanded with instructions that the city dismiss the NOV because it did not adequately describe the zoning violations it alleged. The UDO's plain language required that the NOV specify (1) which UDO provisions were at issue and (2) which conditions on the property violated those provisions; instead, the NOV gave no details about the site plan deviations that resulted in the NOV's issuance, and then advised plaintiff to "remove all alterations inconsistent" with the approved site plan–or face harsh civil penalties–without specifying which alterations the NOV was referring to. Furthermore, the blurry photographs attached to the NOV (including an aerial view of the market and images of certain structures on the property) did not provide sufficient insight into what the alleged UDO violations were.

Summary from the North Carolina Reports digest (official subject index). Read the opinion →