{ "id": 11204819, "name": "WATER TOWER OFFICE ASSOCIATES, Petitioner v. TOWN OF CARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Respondent", "name_abbreviation": "Water Tower Office Associates v. Town of Cary Board of Adjustment", "decision_date": "1998-12-15", "docket_number": "No. COA98-345", "first_page": "696", "last_page": "699", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "131 N.C. App. 696" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "143 S.E.2d 247", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "254" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574297 ], "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "10" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "250 S.E.2d 236", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "244" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 330", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565980 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "342" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0330-01" ] }, { "cite": "426 S.E.2d 435", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "437", "parenthetical": "\"[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and can be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal to this Court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "109 N.C. App. 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8525216 ], "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "288", "parenthetical": "\"[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and can be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal to this Court.\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/109/0285-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 S.E.2d 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "660", "parenthetical": "noting that the time for taking appeal \"begins to run when a party has actual or constructive notice of the zoning decision\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527331 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "618-19", "parenthetical": "noting that the time for taking appeal \"begins to run when a party has actual or constructive notice of the zoning decision\"" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S.E.2d 78", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 155", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558203 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0155-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E.2d 265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "272", "parenthetical": "noting that the Board of Adjustment must abide by local ordinances enacted in accordance with state zoning law" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 N.C. App. 408", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553595 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "418-19", "parenthetical": "noting that the Board of Adjustment must abide by local ordinances enacted in accordance with state zoning law" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/2/0408-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 S.E.2d 729", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "319 N.C. 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4744900, 4746471, 4743498, 4747181, 4745789 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/319/0410-02", "/nc/319/0410-03", "/nc/319/0410-04", "/nc/319/0410-05", "/nc/319/0410-01" ] }, { "cite": "350 S.E.2d 893", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "895" }, { "page": "895" }, { "page": "894" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "83 N.C. App. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8358966 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1986, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "518" }, { "page": "518" }, { "page": "517" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/83/0516-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 382, "char_count": 7339, "ocr_confidence": 0.782, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0482681451391714e-07, "percentile": 0.5530368758950811 }, "sha256": "9c29312e6372ae37caf13c94aa871540c4d6475705059bda62d35317cbaf0d29", "simhash": "1:0bedf46a270dc118", "word_count": 1226 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:28.584435+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges LEWIS and HORTON concur." ], "parties": [ "WATER TOWER OFFICE ASSOCIATES, Petitioner v. TOWN OF CARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Respondent" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GREENE, Judge.\nWater Tower Office Associates (WTOA) appeals from the trial court\u2019s order dismissing its petition for writ of certiorari.\nIn 1987, WTOA purchased two tracts of property in the Town of Cary, which it contends was zoned for commercial use. On 11 October 1996, WTOA received a letter from a Town of Cary zoning code enforcement officer, Tracy Roberts (Roberts), informing WTOA that these two tracts are zoned for residential use. On 18 October 1996, WTOA mailed a letter to the Town of Cary\u2019s planning director, Jeff Ulma (Ulma), \u201casking for [Ulma\u2019s] assistance in advising as well as participating with us in correcting this potentially costly error. Please let me know what is the next step to be taken.\u201d There is no evidence in the record that WTOA mailed copies of this letter to anyone other than Ulma. J.W. Shearin (Shearin), a planner for the Town of Cary, responded to WTOA\u2019s letter on 30 October 1996, stating:\nPlease find attached an application for an Administrative Appeal to the Board of Adjustment in response to your letter of October 18, 1996, concerning the \u201cnext step\u201d for addressing the issue of zoning on [your property].\nThis application would be reviewed by the Cary Board of Adjustment to appeal staff\u2019s decision for zoning of your property. I have also included a calendar for the Town of Cary Board of Adjustment.\nUpon your review, please contact me at 469-4080 for additional information or assistance.\nWTOA filed its appeal of Roberts\u2019 administrative decision that its property is zoned for residential use on 17 February 1997. The Board of Adjustment subsequently heard WTOA\u2019s appeal and affirmed Roberts\u2019 decision. WTOA filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the trial court seeking review of the decision of the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment made a motion to dismiss the petition because WTOA\u2019s appeal from Roberts\u2019 decision had not been timely filed with the Board of Adjustment. The trial court allowed the Board of Adjustment\u2019s motion on 30 June 1997, dismissing WTOA\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari with prejudice. From this order of the trial court, WTOA appeals.\nThe issue is whether WTOA failed to timely appeal from Roberts\u2019 adverse decision.\nAppeal to the Board of Adjustment from the decision of a zoning enforcement officer \u201cshall be taken within the times prescribed by the [B]oard of [A]djustment by general rule.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-388(b) (1994). The Town of Cary\u2019s ordinances provide that appeal from a zoning officer\u2019s decision \u201cshall be filed no later than 30 days after the date of the contested action.\u201d Cary, N.C., Code of Ordinances \u00a7 6.2.4(b) (Supp. 1998). \u201cThe established rules of the Board [of Adjustment] are binding on the Board itself, as well as on the public.\u201d Town and Country Civic Organization v. Winston-Salem Bd. of Adjustment, 83 N.C. App. 516, 518, 350 S.E.2d 893, 895 (1986), dismissal allowed and disc. review denied, 319 N.C. 410, 354 S.E.2d 729 (1987); Jackson v. Board of Adjustment, 2 N.C. App. 408, 418-19, 163 S.E.2d 265, 272 (1968) (noting that the Board of Adjustment must abide by local ordinances enacted in accordance with state zoning law), aff\u2019d, 275 N.C. 155, 177 S.E.2d 78 (1969). Failure to take appeal within the time period set forth deprives the Board of Adjustment of subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Town and Country Civic Organization, 83 N.C. App. at 518, 350 S.E.2d at 895.\nIn this case, the thirty-day limitations period for filing an appeal began to run, at the latest, on WTOA\u2019s receipt of Roberts\u2019 11 October 1996 letter notifying WTOA that its property is zoned for residential use. See Allen v. City of Burlington Bd. of Adjustment, 100 N.C. App. 615, 618-19, 397 S.E.2d 657, 660 (1990) (noting that the time for taking appeal \u201cbegins to run when a party has actual or constructive notice of the zoning decision\u201d). WTOA did not appeal Roberts\u2019 decision to the Board of Adjustment, however, until 17 February 1997. Because more than thirty days had elapsed since WTOA had received notice of the zoning decision, the Board of Adjustment did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Despite WTOA\u2019s contentions to the contrary, it is irrelevant that the Board of Adjustment heard WTOA\u2019s appeal. See Town and Country Civic Organization, 83 N.C. App. at 517, 350 S.E.2d at 894; In re Triscari Children, 109 N.C. App. 285, 288, 426 S.E.2d 435, 437 (1993) (\u201c[L]ack of subject matter jurisdiction cannot be waived and can be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal to this Court.\u201d).\nWTOA contends that it should not be held to the thirty-day limit for filing appeal since the letter from Shearin did not inform WTOA of this limitation. WTOA, however, is presumed to know the law. See, e.g., In re Forestry Foundation, Inc., 296 N.C. 330, 342, 250 S.E.2d 236, 244 (1979); Teer Co. v. Highway Commission, 265 N.C. 1, 10, 143 S.E.2d 247, 254 (1965). Accordingly, the thirty-day limitation set forth in the Town of Cary\u2019s ordinances is binding on WTOA.\nWTOA alternatively contends that its letter of 18 October 1996 to Ulma, which was mailed within thirty days of Roberts\u2019 decision, should be construed as an appeal of that decision. Appeal is taken, however, \u201cby filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with the [Bjoard of [A]djustment a notice of appeal.\u201d N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-388(b). WTOA\u2019s letter to Ulma does not fulfill this statutory requirement.\nAccordingly, the trial court properly dismissed WTOA\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari.\nAffirmed.\nJudges LEWIS and HORTON concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GREENE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Holt & York, LLP, by Barbara A. Jackson, for petitioner appellant.", "The Brough Law Firm, by William C. Morgan, Jr., for respondent appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WATER TOWER OFFICE ASSOCIATES, Petitioner v. TOWN OF CARY BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, Respondent\nNo. COA98-345\n(Filed 15 December 1998)\nZoning\u2014 appeal from zoning enforcement officer \u2014 not timely\nThe trial court properly dismissed a petition for a writ of cer-tiorari seeking review by the trial court of a decision of the Cary Board of Adjustment where petitioner received a letter from a zoning enforcement officer on 11 October 1996 informing petitioner that a tract which petitioner had thought was zoned commercial was zoned for residential use; petitioner wrote a letter to the planning director on 18 October asking for advice and help in correcting the problem; a planner with the Town responded on 30 October by sending petitioner an application for an appeal of the decision that the property is zoned residential; petitioner filed the appeal on 17 February; the Board of Adjustment affirmed the decision; petitioner filed for a writ of certiorari seeking review of the Board of Adjustment decision; and the court allowed a motion to dismiss because the appeal from the administrative decision had not been timely. Petitioner is presumed to know the law even if the limitation was not mentioned in the letter from the planner and the thirty-day limitations period began running at the latest on receipt of the 11 October letter. The 18 October letter did not fulfill the statutory requirement for an appeal and it is irrelevant that the Board of Adjustment heard the appeal.\nAppeal by petitioner from order filed 30 June 1997 by Judge Jack A. Thompson in Wake County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 October 1998.\nHolt & York, LLP, by Barbara A. Jackson, for petitioner appellant.\nThe Brough Law Firm, by William C. Morgan, Jr., for respondent appellee." }, "file_name": "0696-01", "first_page_order": 730, "last_page_order": 733 }