Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 5 The Background/Facts: Four nonprofit citizen groups (the "Objectors") in the City of Charleston (the "City"), whose missions included protecting qual- ity of life for City citizens and/or the historic and, cultural character of the City, brought a legal action seeking an injunction against Carnival Corpora- tion ("Carnival"). The Objectors alleged unlawful use of the Union Pier Terminal (the "Terminal") in the City by Carnival's cruise ship, the Fantasy. Among other things, the Objectors brought zoning and nuisance claims. They alleged that the Fantasy's use of the Terminal violated City zoning codes because: it was not a permissible use within the light industrial zone applicable to the Terminal; it was an accommodations use in an area not zoned for ac- commodations uses; it was a tour boat use in an area not within a tour boat overlay zone; the Fantasy exceeded the applicable height ordinance; and the Fantasy ship blocked views of the Cooper River in violation of the applicable view corridor provisions. The Objectors also alleged that Carnival violated the City's sign ordinance because the Fantasy's smokestack was a sign, and violated the City's noise ordinance because the Fantasy made announcements over amplified sound systems. The South Carolina State Ports Authority (the "Port Authority"), which owned and operated the Terminal, and the City were permitted to intervene as defendants in the case. Carnival, the Port Authority and the City (collectively, the "Defendants") moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the Objectors lacked standing (i.e., the legal right to bring the action). The Defendants also petitioned the Supreme Court of South Carolina to take the case, which was granted. DECISION: Action dismissed. The Supreme Court of South Carolina held that the Objectors lacked stand- ing to bring any of the claims contained in their complaint. In so holding, the court explained that to possess standing, the Objectors had to satisfy three elements: (1) they had to have suffered an injury -in -fact which was a concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest; (2) there had to be a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct (i.e., Fantasy's alleged improper use of the Terminal); and (3) it had to be likely that a favorable decision Would redress the injury. Here, the court found that the first element was missing: The=Objectors failed to allege a concrete, particularized harm to a legally protected interest and therefore lacked standing. The court' explained that in order for an injury to be particularized, it must affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way. Here, the court found that the harms alleged —which included traffic congestion, noise pollution, air pollution, and the disruption of the historic skyline —were insufficient for standing as they were only general grievances, claiming harm to the public and seeking relief that no more directly and tangibly benefited the Objectors than it did the public at large. The court also acknowledged that the Objectors, as associations, could pos- sess standing by virtue of associational standing on behalf of their members. The court explained that an organization has associational standing "if one or more of its members [would] suffer an individual injury by virtue of the ©2014 Thomson Reuters 5