Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
. • I <br /> Board of Commissioners Page Five August 24 , 1987 <br /> i <br /> who has standing to challenge a conditional use <br /> decision. In the case of Heer v. Town of Highlands <br /> Zonin Board of Ad 'ustment, N.C.A <br /> S.E. 2d 869 (1983) , the North Carolina Court of Appeals <br /> found that a group of petitioners failed to meet the <br /> standing test. The petitioners alleged that they Were <br /> property owners who would suffer a decline in value of <br /> their land as the result of the decision in question. <br /> In its opinion, the court stressed that the <br /> failed to prove that they would be subject to "specials <br /> damages" distinct from the rest of the community. <br /> Without a claim of " 'special damages, ' the petitioners <br /> 3 are not 'aggrieved' persons under [N.C. Gen. Stat. <br /> 5 Section 160A-381] , and they have no standing. " Id. 300 <br /> S.E. 2d at 870. The court in the Heery case gave this <br /> history of standing in the context of conditional use <br /> k permits. <br /> Earlier versions of N.C. Gen. Stat. <br /> g Section <br /> 160A-388 [the statute which provides <br /> for the procedures involving appeals of Board <br /> 0 of Adjustment decisions which are in the <br /> § context of standing identical to those under <br /> N.C. Gen. Stat. Sectior, 160A-381] , which <br /> contain review provisions similar to the <br /> present statute, were interpreted to mean <br /> 1 that "the appealing party must have some <br /> z interest in the <br /> Property affected. " Pi ford <br /> V. Board of Adjustment, 49 N.C.App, 181, 270 <br /> p <br /> S .E. 2d 535 (1 980) , disc. rev. denied and <br /> ap eal dismissed. 301 N.C. 722, 274 S.E. 2d <br /> 1 230 (1981) <br /> (cit. omitted) . However, the <br /> "property affected" is not limited to the <br /> W Property subject to the special use permit. <br /> a An order of a Board of Adjustment which <br /> exceeds its authority under the zoning <br /> ordinance may be appealed by nearby land <br /> owners who will sustain, special damage from <br /> the proposed use. Jackson v. Board of <br /> Adjustment , 275 N.C. 155, 161- 77—"NT S.E. 2d <br /> 78 (1969) (emphasis added) . The court <br /> defined "special damage" as "a reduction in <br /> the value of his [petitioner ' s] own <br /> Property. " Id. at 161, 166 S.E. 2d at 82. <br /> Id. , 300 S.E. 2d at 871. <br /> As is the case with zoning decisions, there are no ' <br /> reported cases involving the challenge of a conditional <br /> use permit wherein one local government challenges the <br /> decision of another. For the reasons stated above in <br />