## Facts

- Douglas E. Smith owned property in the Town of Beaufort’s designated historic district, across the street from Gerharda H. Sanchez’s home.
- Smith sought to demolish an existing historic cottage (about sixteen feet tall) and construct a taller replacement structure; a Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) from the Beaufort Historic Preservation Commission (BHPC) was required.
- After multiple COA denials and appeals involving the BHPC, the Town’s Board of Adjustment (BOA), and superior court proceedings, Smith submitted a new COA application proposing a one-and-one-half-story structure roughly 29 feet tall.
- The BHPC held public hearings, approved demolition based on a finding the cottage was beyond repair, but refused to approve the new structure at the proposed height.
- Evidence showed building heights in the historic district varied substantially (approximately 20 to 35 feet), yet the BHPC insisted on a maximum height around 24 feet for Smith’s project.
- Smith appealed, and the BOA concluded the BHPC’s height limitation was arbitrary and capricious and ordered the BHPC to issue the COA for Smith’s proposed structure.
- Sanchez petitioned for judicial review, alleging the taller structure would obstruct her private water view and reduce her property value by approximately $100,000 to $150,000.
- The superior court affirmed the BOA’s order, and Sanchez appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Sanchez had standing to seek judicial review of the BOA decision by alleging “special damages” distinct from those suffered by the public at large.
2. Whether the BOA erred in concluding the BHPC’s denial of the COA (based primarily on a height restriction) was arbitrary and capricious under applicable historic-preservation standards.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals held Sanchez had standing because she alleged special damages—loss of a unique private view and a substantial, specific diminution in her property value.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the superior court’s judgment upholding the BOA’s order requiring the BHPC to issue the COA.
- The court agreed there was record support for the BOA’s conclusion that the BHPC’s height cap was inconsistent with existing district conditions and not sufficiently grounded in established standards rather than subjective preferences.

## Legal Principles

- A nearby property owner has standing to challenge a land-use decision by alleging special damages, including a particularized loss in property value tied to obstruction of a private view, not merely generalized community concerns.
- In reviewing quasi-judicial land-use determinations, courts review legal questions de novo and evaluate evidentiary support under the whole record test.
- Historic-preservation commissions may regulate demolition and new construction within historic districts, but restrictions must be anchored in adopted standards and applied consistently.
- A commission acts arbitrarily and capriciously when it imposes case-specific limits unsupported by its written guidelines or by substantial evidence, particularly when inconsistent with comparable structures in the regulated district.
- A board of adjustment may reverse a commission decision and order issuance of a COA when the commission’s denial lacks a reasoned, standards-based evidentiary foundation.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a neighbor’s standing based on alleged, individualized economic harm from view obstruction but still affirmed the BOA’s order requiring issuance of the COA, concluding the BHPC’s height-based denial rested on an unsupported, inconsistent restriction rather than established, evidence-based historic-preservation standards.


Sanchez v. Town of Beaufort, 710 S.E.2d 350 (N.C. Ct. App. 2011)