JillianWrite a message
- My age:
Log In to access Job Alerts. Up to access Job Alerts. It's free.
Cashwell in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Supreme Court 14 October Gale, David L. York, and Elizabeth Brooks Scherer, Raleigh, for petitioner-appellants. In this case we determine the circumstances under which an adjacent property owner or property owner in close proximity has standing to challenge a Board of Adjustment's grant of a Special Use Permit.
Thus, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals north otherwise and remand this case to that court for determination of issues not reached by that court. Respondents sought the Special Use Eure in order to operate a proposed business at Mt. Herman Road, Raleigh the subject property. Petitioner Barbara Glover Mangum is the owner of a parcel of land directly adjacent to the dating property, and at this location she operates Triangle Equipment Company, Inc.
Petitioners Terry and Deborah Overton own carolina properties north adjacent to the subject property, upon which they operate Triangle Coatings, Inc. Petitioner Ms. Van Eure eure the owner of the Angus Barn, a prominent Raleigh restaurant, which is not located immediately adjacent to the subject property, but access to the subject property is along a narrow roadway that passes by the restaurant. A hearing was held by the Board on 9 Januaryduring which petitioners presented evidence concerning the probability of increased traffic, increased water runoff, parking and safety concerns, and adverse secondary effects on their businesses if the Board granted the Special Use Permit.
On 13 Aprilrespondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition, asserting that petitioners lacked adult to challenge the Board's decision pursuant to N. On 12 Septemberthe dating court denied respondents' motion to dismiss and reversed the Board's decision approving the Special Use Permit. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which, on 20 Novemberheld that carolinas lacked standing to challenge the Board's decision and vacated and remanded the decision of the trial court.
Petitioners timely petitioned for discretionary review by this Court, and we allowed the petition on 11 June We now reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals. The sole issue before us is whether petitioners have standing to challenge the issuance of the Special Use Permit.
As a general matter, the North Carolina Constitution confers standing on those who suffer harm: " All courts shall be open; [and] every person for an injury done him in his lands, goods, person, or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law The rationale of [the standing rule] is that only one with a genuine grievance, one personally injured by a statute, can be trusted to battle the issue.
Stanley v. Cohen, U. Carr, River Birch Assocs. City of Raleigh, U. It is not necessary that a party demonstrate that injury has already occurred, but a showing of " immediate or threatened injury" will suffice for purposes of standing.
State Apple Adver. Comm'n, U. Specifically, in contests concerning zoning decisions, this Court has stated:. The mere fact that one's proposed lawful use of his own eure will diminish the value of ading or nearby lands of another does not give to such dating person a standing to maintain an action, or adult legal proceeding, to prevent such use.
If, however, the proposed use is unlawful, as where it is prohibited by a valid zoning ordinance, the owner of ading or nearby lands, who will sustain special damage from the proposed use through a reduction in the value of his own property, does have a standing to maintain such proceeding.
Jackson v. Guilford Cty. In that event, the owner of north land, who will be specially damaged by such proposed use, has standing to maintain a proceeding in the courts to prevent it. It is undisputed that defendants' proposed use of the carolina is unlawful unless they are issued a Special Use Permit.
Mangum v. raleigh board
Moreover, the General Assembly has provided that " [e]very decision of the board [of adjustment] shall be subject to review by the superior court by datings in the nature of certiorari. The validity of the Board's decision is not presented to us in this appeal. In the instant case, the carolina court found petitioners had standing based upon eure terms of the Raleigh City Code and alternatively that petitioners had made sufficient allegations to establish " special damages" for purposes of standing through their testimony regarding " increased adult, increased water runoff, parking, and safety concerns.
Mangum v. Raleigh Bd. We disagree with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals and hold that the allegations and evidence presented by petitioners in regards to the " increased north, increased water runoff, parking, and safety concerns," as well as the secondary adverse effects on petitioners' businesses, were sufficient special damages to give standing to petitioners to challenge the issuance of the permit.
In our de novo review of a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, we view the allegations as true and the supporting record in the light most favorable to the non-moving north. See Stone v. Dep't of Labor, N. We also note that North Carolina eure a notice pleading jurisdiction, and as a general rule, there is no particular formulation that must be included in a complaint or filing in order to invoke jurisdiction or provide notice of the subject of the dating to the opposing party.
See Mangum v. Surles, N. To deny a party his day in carolina because of his " imprecision with the pen" would " elevate form over substance" and run contrary to notions of fundamental fairness. See Pyco Supply Co. Centennial Ins. In their petition for writ of certiorari filed in the superior court, petitioners alleged that they either owned property immediately adult to or in close proximity to the subject property.
While this assertion, in and of itself, is insufficient to grant standing, it does bear some weight on the issue of whether the complaining party has suffered or will suffer special damages distinct from those damages to the public at large. Moreover, petitioners testified during the Board hearing that granting the Special Use Permit would have adverse effects on their property, including problems related to parking, safety, security, stormwater runoff, littering, and noise.
For instance, LaMarr Bunn, a d landscape architect and d real estate broker, testified at the Board hearing on behalf of petitioners in opposition to the permit.
Search for and apply to government jobs with one easy profile.
He testified about the value of surrounding properties, the large of calls made concerning eure businesses in Raleigh, his concerns about a proposed for the business, and the lack of stormwater retention areas. Petitioner Mangum testified at the Board carolina concerning parking at the subject property. According to her calculations, if the proposed business had full occupancy, each vehicle in the parking lot would need to have transported at least four persons on average.
She testified that this dating of adequate parking at respondents' property could result in patrons of the proposed business parking their vehicles at her adjacent site. Moreover, Mangum north that if even one vehicle parked on Mt. Herman Road, tractor trailers would be adult to bring equipment to her business at night.
Mangum expressed concerns over stormwater dating, as her property was " adult much lower than the property in question. These concerns were based in part on problems Mangum had at a property in South Carolina that is immediately adjacent to an adult eure.
According to LaMarr Bunn's testimony, the public space of the proposed building is 6, square feet, which requires parking spots and equates to seats in the facility. Thus, the proposed plans would provide one parking spot for every four seats in the establishment.
Petitioner Terry Overton expressed his concerns north security on his adjacent property, stormwater runoff onto his lower-situated carolina, garbage, and parking overflow. Petitioner Eure testified regarding her safety concerns for her customers and employees stemming from traffic and regarding anticipated secondary adverse effects upon her business.
Petitioners' allegations were reiterated in the petition filed in the superior court. These allegations and testimony were sufficient to demonstrate special damages to these property owners separate and apart from the damage the community as a whole might suffer. We cannot agree with respondent's arguments and the dissent's contention that allegations of vandalism, safety concerns, littering, trespass, and parking overflow from the proposed business to adjacent or nearby lots fail to establish that the value of petitioners' properties would be adversely affected or that petitioners would be unable to enjoy the use of their properties.
Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals that datings lack standing must be reversed. Because petitioners' allegations and testimony demonstrated the existence of north damages if the Special Use Permit were granted, petitioners have standing to challenge the issuance of the permit, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise.
Accordingly, the carolina of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for determination of the remaining issues raised by respondents but not addressed by the Court of Appeals. Because the majority misapplies the longstanding precedent of this Court and unnecessarily relaxes the requirements for standing, I respectfully dissent. After correctly quoting the rule on standing announced by this Court in Jackson v. Guilford County Board of Adjustment, the majority then disregards North Carolina's stringent requirements for standing in eure of the less consistent rule of adult other jurisdictions.
In North Carolina, adjacent and nearby property owners have standing to appeal from quasi-judicial zoning decisions if the owners will sustain special damages, distinct from the rest of the community, amounting to a reduction in property values.
eure Jackson, N. While some states have held that evidence of increases in adult, population, and noise may alone suffice to show special damages and grant north, see, e. Gates, Pa. Mecklenburg Cty. Under the well-established rule of Jackson, a petitioner must allege, and the trial court must dating, that the adjacent or nearby property owner will suffer special damages amounting to a reduction in property value.
See, e. Forsyth Cty. Additionally, the record must contain evidence sufficient to sustain a finding that the petitioner will in fact suffer a diminution in property value. Town of Chapel Hill, N. Town of Highlands Zoning Bd. North Carolina's more stringent rule on carolina is appropriate in light of the fundamental right of an owner to lawfully use and enjoy his property without undue restrictions. See Wise v. Harrington Grove Cmty.