A lost distinction

We found this from an inspector in a recent appeal decision (DCS Number 400-016-993).

“The terms ‘incidental’ and ‘ancillary’ have, in general, become interchangeable in their meaning. Both terms refer to a use or activity that would not be expected to be found as an integral part of a use.”

Is the inspector right on this? Are ‘incidental’ and ‘ancillary’ interchangeable? Or does ‘ancillary’ have a connotation of serving a principal use in some way whereas ‘incidental’ is just, well, incidental.

What do readers think? And does it matter anyway?

The following DCP section is relevant: 4.323

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.