# Concerned Citizens of Downtown Asheville v. Board of Adjustment

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · June 20, 1989 · 94 N.C. App. 364

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1248484

## Case

- **Full name:** CONCERNED CITIZENS OF DOWNTOWN ASHEVILLE, an Unincorporated Association, JIM F. HUGHES, JOHN A. AUTEN, ROBERT H. JOLLY, Plaintiffs v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE, Defendant and ASHEVILLE-BUNCOMBE COMMUNITY CHRISTIAN MINISTRY, Intervenor
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** June 20, 1989
- **Citations:** 94 N.C. App. 364; 380 S.E.2d 130; 1989 N.C. App. LEXIS 463
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Arnold
- **Judges:** Arnold, Johnson, Phillips
- **Cited by:** 5 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1248484

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that allegations that plaintiffs were nearby or adjacent property owners, although insufficient alone to support standing to appeal a decision of a board of adjustment under N.C.G.S. § 160A-388(e), “might be sufficient to challenge the validity of an amendment to the o…

## Opinion text

ARNOLD, Judge.
Defendant Board of Adjustment of the City of Asheville contends that plaintiffs lacked standing to seek review of the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s decision. We agree.
An appeal from a board of zoning adjustment decision may be taken by any person “aggrieved.” N.C.G.S. § 160A-388(e). Thus, plaintiffs had standing only if they were aggrieved persons within the meaning of the statute.
Heery v. Town of Highlands Zoning Board of Adjustment,
61 N.C. App. 612 , 300 S.E. 2d 869 (1983). As the court in
Heery
pointed out, an aggrieved party is one who can show either “some interest in the property affected,” or, if plaintiffs are nearby property owners, they must show “special damage” which amounts to “a reduction in the value of [their] property.”
Id.
at 613 , 300 S.E. 2d at 870 ,
citing Pigford v. Board of Adjustment,
49 N.C. App. 181 , 270 S.E. 2d 535 (1980),
disc. rev. denied and appeal dismissed,
301 N.C. 722 , 274 S.E. 2d 230 (1981);
Jackson v. Board of Adjustment,
275 N.C. 155, 161-62 , 166 S.E. 2d 78, 82-83 (1969).
In this case, as in
Heery ,
plaintiffs failed to allege, and the Superior Court failed to find that plaintiffs would be subject to “ ‘special damages’ distinct from the rest of the community.”
Heery
at 614 , 300 S.E. 2d at 870 . Plaintiffs allege nothing more than that they are nearby or adjacent property owners. Though this might be sufficient to challenge the validity of an amendment to the ordinance itself in a declaratory judgment action,
Godfrey v. Zoning Board of Adjustment,
317 N.C. 51, 66 , 344 S.E. 2d 272, 281 (1986), it is insufficient to allege standing under N.C.G.S. § 160A-388(e). See generally 3 Rathkopf,
The Law of Zoning and Planning
§ 43.04 at 43-22 (1988).
*367
The order appealed from is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the Superior Court for the entry of an order dismissing the petition for writ of certiorari and vacating the writ of certiorari granted.
Vacated and appeal dismissed.
Judges Johnson and Phillips concur.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1248484. Public record. Not legal advice.