Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin ATC South, Inc. challenged the rezoning. ATC was a competitor of seE & G in the cell~phone tower business. ATC owned a tract of land (with a cell tower) approximately one mile from the Property. The circuit court found that ATC's status as a competitor did not give it standirtg to challenge the rezoning. The court dismissed the case. ATC appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that ATC did not have standing to challenge the rezoning. ' In reaching its conclusion, the court noted that standing to bring an action could be achieved: (1) by statute; (2) under the United States Constitution's principle of standing; or (3) under a "public importance" exception. Section 6-29-769(C) of the South Carolina Code provided th,at "an owner of adjoining land" had "standing to bring an action contesting the ordinance or amendment." Because ATe did not own land adjoining the Property, the court concluded that ATC 'did not have statutory stand- ing to challenge the rezone. Nor did ATC have standing under the United States Constitution's principle of standing, concluded the court. ATC had not suffered an "'in- jury in fact'-an invasion of a legally protected interest that was (a) con~ crete and particularized, and (b) 'actual or imminent, not. . . 'hypotheti-, caL'" The only potential injury or prejudice to ATC was an increase in business competition. The court found that was not a sufficient injury for standingt? challenge the rezone. Under the "public importance" exception to the general standing re- quirements, ATC could have standing if the issue it challenged was "of such public importance as to require its resolution for future guidance." While zoning was important to the public, there was nothing "public" about ATC's concern with a competing cell-phone tower. ATC's chal- lenge to the rezoning did not implicate a matter of public importance requiring court resolution for future guidance, concluded the court. Accordingly, ATC's challenge was dismissed for lack of standing. See also: Westborough Mall, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau, Mo., 693 E2d 733,1983-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) ¶ 65240 (8th Cir. 1982). See atso: Sloan v. Sanford, 357 S.c. 431, 593 S.E.2d 470,21 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 171 (2004). c;aS'e Note: ATC had also argued that it had standing to challenge the rezoning because it was a taxpayer. The court rejected that ar- gument, noting that the injury to ATC as a taxpayer was common to all owners in the county. Because the injury was "common," it 6 @ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest 62 I ) , i