Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2008

Home

December 25, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 24 (~ \ ) but the court found that there were exceptions to the exhaustion doctrine. The court noted that: "[c]itizens who unsuccessfully oppose[d] rezoning in hearings before governing bodies [could] obtain judicial review of rezoning decisions by suits in equity as there [was] no statutory review procedure (i.e., no adequate rem- edy at law)." For the state law claim to be dismissed, the city had to s.l1ow that the residents could prove no set of facts in support of their claim. However, the city did not meet this standard; the state law claim was allowed to proceed. See also: McKinney v. Pate, 20 R3d 1550 (1994): See also: Vaughan v. Duke, 205 S.E.2d 499 (1974). Standing-Adult entertainment business loses special use permit after neighboring business owners intervene Board argues interveners did not have standing to bring claim Citation: Mangum v. Raleigh Bd. of Adjustment, 2007 WL 4105034 (N.C.App.) I .1 i l. ,) NORTH CAROLINA (11/20/07)-In November 2005, PRS Part- ners, LLC, and RPS Holdings, LLC, applied to tue city of Raleigh inspections department for a special use permit to operate a "[Gen- tlemen's]ITopless Adult Upscale Establishment." The board of ad- justment held a hearing, at the conclusion of which the board made numerous findings of fact and conclusions of law. Ultimately, the board approved the permit application. Several neighboring landowners, including some who operated businesses on their property, testified at the hearing about the ad- verse secondary effects of opening a sexually oriented business near- by. In addition, they allegedly had concerns regarding inadequate parking, safety and security, stormwater runoff, trash, and noise. These neighbors (collectively, the petitioners) asked the court to re- view the board's decision through a legal process called certiorari. Certiorari was generally granted under very narrow circumstances. However, the court granted the petitioner's request, and, further, it subsequently reversed the board's decision granting the special use permit.. The owners of the adult entertainment business appealed, arguing that the court had erred when it granted review to the peti- tioners because they lacked standing to bring an action in court. ( \ Decision: Reversed. , ) "''-",","../ Under state law, "any person aggrieved" by a zoning decision could appeal the decision to the board of adjustment. Further, an ag- 9 83