appeal was, in fact, timely. [0]ne of the functions of a Board of Adjustment is to interpret local zoning ordinances, and... [such interpretation] is given deference. Therefore, our task on appeal is not to decide whether another interpretation of the ordinance might reasonably have been reached by the board, but to decide if the board acted arbitrarily, oppressively, manifestly abused its authority, or committed an error of law in interpreting the ordinance. Westminster Homes, Inc. v. Town of Cary Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 140 N.C. App. 99, 103, 535 S.E.2d 415, 417-18 (2000). The superior court’s scope of review on certiorari is limited to errors alleged to have occurred before the local board. See Godfrey v. Zoning Bd. of Adjust., 317 N.C. 51, 62-63, 344 S.E.2d 272, 279 (1986) (<HOLDING>). “[T]he superior court, and hence this Court
holding that the board validly exercised its legislative discretion in this matter only after a lengthy deliberation completely consistent with both the procedure called for by the relevant zoning ordinance and the rules prohibiting illegal contract zoning holding that because the board of aldermen only decided whether to grant a variance under the zoning ordinance the superior court erred by determining the question of the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance which was never raised or considered by the board of aldermen holding that allegations that the city arbitrarily applied a zoning ordinance were insufficient to state a substantive due process claim and stating in dicta that the decision would be the same even if the city had knowingly enforced the invalid zoning ordinance in bad faith a badfaith violation of state law remains only a violation of state law holding that where a zoning board had no authority under state law to take certain actions with respect to a protected property interest a trier of fact could conclude that there was no rational basis for the towns zoning boards actions and that as a result the zoning board violated appellants rights to substantive due process holding that the city was not estopped from enforcing a zoning ordinance when a zoning department employee mistakenly stamped the plaintiffs application for a license to operate a laundromat to indicate compliance with the ordinance