Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 3 The Court of Appeals of North Carolina agreed with the City and MAP, concluding that CCO lacked standing to bring the declaratory judgment action against the City and MAP. In so concluding, the court explained that a party only has standing to challenge a zoning ordinance in an action for declaratory judgment when it "has a specific personal and legal interest in the subject matter affected by the zoning ordinance and . . . is directly and adversely affected thereby." The court noted that although owning property immediately adjacent to or within close proximity to the subject property (as CCO did here with regard to the parcels MAP sought to rezone) did "bear some weight on the issue of whether the complaining party ha[d] suffered or [would] suffer special damages distinct from those damages to the public at large," that was not "in and of itself sufficient to plead special damages." Here, examining the evidence submitted by CCO, the court found it was "insufficient to show that CCO ha[d] or [would] suffer any individual harm as a result of the rezoning such that CCO" could prove standing and survive the motion for summary judgment that had been brought by the City and MAP. Although CCO had alleged special damages, the court found that there was no "actual proof' of special damages. The court found that "CCO's forecast of evidence of specialdamages consist[ed] of noth- ing more than conclusory, unsupported allegations that certain damages [would] ensue . . . " Having found that CCO failed to meet its burden of production of evi- dence that it would suffer special damages distinct from the rest of the community because of MAP's rezoning, the court concluded that CCO failed to establish that it had standing to maintain its action for declaratory judgment. Accordingly, the court did not reach CCO's remaining conten- tions and the merits of CCO's appeal. See also: Cherry v. Wiesner, 781 S.E.2d 871 (N.C. Ct. App. 2016), review denied, 369 N.C. 33, 792 S.E.2d 779 (2016). Zoning News from Around the Nation MASSACHUSETTS The Woburn City Council recently voted to modify local regulations to extend to 12-months the immunity period that shields builders from hav- ing to modify construction plans to reflect recently adopted zoning ordinances. Previously, the exception was for a six-month period of time, which conflicted with a superseding state law. Source: Daily Times Chronicle; http://homenewshere.com OHIO The Newark City Council has passed a zoning ordinance allowing for © 2018 Thomson Reuters 11