Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2014

Home

March 10, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin contested act." Three elements were also necessary for the Objectors to have associational standing, said the court: (1) an Objector organization's members had to otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (2) the interests at stake had to be gennane to the Objector organization's purpose; and (3) nei- ther the claim asserted nor the relief requested could require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. Again, here, the court concluded that the Objectors failed to allege a particularized injury either to themselves or their members, but instead as- serted only generalized grievances suffered by the public as a whole. The court found this was insufficient to establish associational standing. In reaching its conclusion, the court rejected the Objectors assertion that the "public importance exception" should apply to remedy any lack of standing. In South Carolina, courts recognize an exception to the requirement that a plaintiff possess standing where "an issue is of such public importance as to require its resolution for future guidance." Here, the court concluded that the issues raised did not rise to such a level of public importance so as to impose that exception to standing. Rather, the court noted that there was no is- sue of constitutionality or legality of governmental action. The court also noted that the claims asserted by the Objectors could be brought by other par- ties who could show the required injury. See also: Sea Pines Ass 'n for Protection of Wildlife, Inc. v. South Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources, 345 S.C. 594, 550 S.E.2d 287 (2001). See also: Dijon v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 119 L. Ed. 2d 351, 34 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1785, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20913 (1992). Case Note: The Objectors had also claimed standing under 5s 6-29-950 of the South Carolina Code. That statute provides standing for zoning violation claims brought by "an adjacent or neighboring property owner who would be specially damaged by the viola- tion ......Again, here, the court found standing failed under that theory because: (1) there was no special injury alleged by. the Objectors; and (2) none of the Objectors claimed to be a neighboring or adjacent property owner of the Terminal. •` Spot � Zoning —County creates new zoning district for parcel to allow senior residential housing Neighbors say this constitutes improper spot zoning Citation: Foothill Communities Coalition v. County of Orange, 222 Cal. App. 4th 1302, 166 Cal. Rptr. 3d 627 (4th Dist. 2014) CALIFORNIA (01/13/14)—This case addressed the issue of whether the 6 © 2014 Thomson Reuters