MNC Holdings, LLC v. Town of Matthews
223 N.C. App. 442
N.C. Ct. App.2012Background
- MNC sought a variance from the Town of Matthews to modify a nonconforming medical waste incinerator to comply with accelerated EPA/DENR regulations.
- In 1991 the annexed property was rezoned from Heavy Industrial to Single-Family Residential, creating a nonconforming use requiring a variance for alterations.
- Town zoning administrator interpreted §153.224(D) to permit only safety-related alterations required by law, restricting MNC’s planned modifications.
- Zoning board denied the variance on 3 November 2011; MNC sought judicial review via writ of certiorari; hearing held 26 January 2012.
- Trial court reversed the Town’s decision on 19 March 2012; Town appealed; issue arose whether service of the notice of appeal complied with rules.
- This appeal addresses whether the Ordinance allows alterations required by law and whether appellate service issues affect jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §153.224(D) permit alterations required by law for a nonconforming use? | MNC: yes, broad interpretation to allow law-required alterations. | Town: no, limit to alterations for safety concerns only. | Yes; liberal interpretation allows law-required alterations; affirmed. |
| Is the Town's email service of the notice of appeal a proper service affecting jurisdiction? | MNC: service was defective, undermining jurisdiction. | Town: nonjurisdictional defect; service may be waived; not fatal here. | Non-jurisdictional; dismissal not warranted; jurisdiction preserved. |
| Was the court's de novo review of the ordinance correct? | MNC: trial court correctly interpreted the statute in favor of law-required alterations. | Town: court should narrowly construe the ordinance as written. | Court properly employed de novo interpretation; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crowell Constructors, Inc. v. State ex rel. Cobey, 328 N.C. 563 (1991) (filing and service are jurisdictional requirements for appeal)
- Hale v. Afro-American Arts Int’l, 335 N.C. 231 (1993) (proper filing necessary; service nonjurisdictional)
- Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191 (2008) (nonjurisdictional errors may be dismissed if substantial)
- Lee v. Winget Rd., LLC, 204 N.C. App. 96 (2010) (service defects can be nonjurisdictional but may require dismissal if prejudicial)
- Morris Comm. Corp. v. City of Bessemer, 365 N.C. 152 (2011) (de novo review of board of adjustment interpretations; flexibility to prevent hardship)