Standards of Review
Superior Court
"The proper standard for the superior court's judicial review depends upon the particular issues presented on appeal. When the petitioner questions (1) whether the agency's decision was supported by the evidence or (2) whether the decision was arbitrary or capricious, then the reviewing court must apply the whole record test. However, f a petitioner contends the oard's decision was based on an error of law, de novo review is proper. Moreover, the trial court, when sitting as an appellate court to review a , must set forth sufficient information in its order to reveal the scope of review utilized and the application of that review. Mann Media, Inc. v.Randolph Cnty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 13, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002) (citations and quotation marks omitted).
De Novo Review
"Under de novo review a reviewing court considers the case anew and may freely substitute its own interpretation of an ordinance for a board of adjustment's conclusions of law. Morris Commc'ns Corp. v. City of Bessemer City Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 365 N.C. 152, 156, 712 S.E.2d 868, 871 (2011).
"[A]n appellate court's obligation to review a superior court order for errors of law can be accomplished by addressing the dispositive issue(s) before the agency and the superior court without examining the scope of review utilized by the superior court. Capital Outdoor, Inc. v. Guilford Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 146 N.C. App. 388, 392, 552 S.E.2d 265, 268 (2001) (Greene, J., dissenting) (citation omitted), rev'd for reasons stated in the dissent, 355 N.C. 269, 559 S.E.2d 547 (2002).
Whole Record Test
"When utilizing the whole record test, . . . the reviewing court must examine all competent evidence (the whole record) in order to determine whether the agency decision is supported by substantial evidence. Mann Media, Inc. v. Randolph Cnty. Planning Bd., 356 N.C. 1, 14, 565 S.E.2d 9, 17 (2002) (quotation marks omitted).
"The 'whole record' test does not allow the reviewing court to replace the Board's judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views, even though the court could justifiably have reached a different result had the matter been before it de novo. Thompson v. Wake Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 292 N.C. 406, 410, 233 S.E.2d 538, 541 (1977).