Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin <br />January 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 1 <br />The superior court concluded that the Board's interpretation of the <br />Ordinance was proper. It affirmed the Notice of Violation that had been <br />issued to Lipinski. <br />Lipinski appealed. <br />DECISION: Judgment of superior court reversed. <br />The Court of Appeals of North Carolina held that the fence was <br />constructed of a pennitted material and complied with the Town <br />Ordinance. <br />In so holding, the court looked to the plain language of the Ordinance. <br />After considering the language of §§ 6-5.2 and 6-5.3, the court found it <br />clear that § 6-5.3 provided a list of materials that may not be used in the <br />construction of a fence based on the uniting theme of safety concerns. <br />While § 6-5.2 clearly articulated the materials that may be used to <br />construct a fence, neither §§ 6-5.2 nor 6-5.3 generally stated that a person <br />may not attach things to a fence constructed in accordance with §§ 6-5.2 <br />and 6-5.3. <br />The court acknowledged the Board's detennination that the fence was <br />constructed of unpeirnitted material because the tarps became part of the <br />fence when they were attached. However, the court found that interpreta- <br />tion of the Ordinance superimposed a limitation that was not found in the <br />Ordinance: that attaching things to a fence changes its structural <br />composition. The court found that Lipinski's act of attaching tarps to the <br />fence did not change the structure of the fence because "if the fence was <br />truly constructed of tarps it likely would not be a fence at all but rather a <br />screen made of tarps." Finding that the tarps that Lipinski attached were a <br />nonstructural feature, the court held that Lipinski's fence, with tarps at- <br />tached to it, was constructed of a permitted material, chain -link, and <br />complied with § 6-5.2 of the Ordinance. <br />Case Note: <br />Lipinski had submitted samples of the tarps to demonstrate that the material was <br />not readily flammable so as to be prohibited by S§ 6-5.3 of the Ordinance. <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />MARYLAND <br />Cecil County council recently passed a bill that will require the plan- <br />ning and zoning office to notify adjacent property owners of pending <br />sludge application sites within 15 days of receiving notice from the Mary- <br />land Department of the Envirornnent. <br />2014 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />