Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
Board of Page Four Commissioners g August 24, 1987 <br /> suffered by the public generally. " DuBa v. <br /> I Md. 180, 213 A. 2d 487, 489 (1965) . Crane, 240 <br /> In North Carolina, the Supreme Court has said much <br /> the same thing in the case of Ta for v. Cit of <br /> Raleigh, cited previously in this letter. In that case <br /> the court said this: <br /> [T] he validity of a municipal zoning <br /> ordinance, when directly and necessarily <br /> involved, may be determined in a properly <br /> constituted action under our Declaratory <br /> Judgment Act. However, this may be done only <br /> when challenged by a person who has a <br /> specific personal and legal interest in the <br /> subject matter affected by the zoning <br /> E0 ordinance and who is directly and adversely <br /> affected thereby. (cit. omitted. ) <br /> Ta for v. Cit of Ralei h, supra, 227 S.E. 2d at 583 . <br /> 1 <br /> 0 Whether a <br /> "person" has standing to challenge a <br /> zoning decision turns on the challenger ' s personal and <br /> specific injury as the result of the zoning decision. <br /> Likewise this personal and specific injury must be "in <br /> a way different from that suffered by the public <br /> I generally. " DuBa v. <br /> gnek Crane, supra. This analysis, I <br /> , precludes Orange County from bringing such a <br /> challenge. There are no reported cases in North <br /> p Carolina where one jurisdiction has challenged <br /> another ' s zoning decisions. There are very few in <br /> g other states and the decisions are not consistent. <br /> think on balance that Orange County would have I <br /> difficulty proving that it, as a governmental unit, <br /> would suffer damage by reason, of a Carrboro zoning <br /> decision which differs from that suffered by the <br /> general public. <br /> 3. The Conditional Use Permit. North Carolina <br /> General Statutes Section, 160A-381 authorizes a city <br /> council (or Board of Aldermen) to issue conditional use <br /> permits. That statute provides that every decision to <br /> issue or not a conditional use permit shall be subject <br /> to review by the courts and that the petition for <br /> review shall be filed with the clerk of superior court <br /> within 30 days after the decision of the city council <br /> is filed or after a written copy is delivered to every <br /> a rieved art who has filed a written request for <br /> such copy with the clerk at the time of the hearing of <br /> the case, which is later. By statute and by case law <br /> the "aggrieved party" standard prevails in determining <br />