Laserfiche WebLink
<br />February 25, 20091 Volume 3 I No.4 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />through a reduction in the value of their property. The court found it r <br />"undisputed" that the Partners' proposed use of the Property was un- ' <br />lawful unless they were issued the Permit. The court also found that the <br />allegations and evidence presented by the Neighbors in regards to '''in- <br />creased traffic, increased water runoff, parking, and safety concerns,' <br />as well as the secondary adverse effects on [the Neighbors') businesses, <br />were. sufficient special damages to give standing to [the Neighbors] to <br />challenge the issuance of the [P]ermit." <br /> <br />See also: Jackson v. Guilford County Bd. of Adjustment, 275 N.C. <br />155, 166 S.E.2d 78 (1969). <br /> <br />Case Note: The court explained that in reviewing the Partners' <br />motion to dismiss the Neighbors' challenge based on lack of stand- <br />ing, it viewed the Neighbors' allegations "as true and supporting <br />the record in the light most favorable to [the Neighbors.)" <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />10'2 <br /> <br />-"" <br />