Mangum v. Raleigh Bd. of Adjust., (613PA07) 12/12/2008, Neighbors vs Strip Club

Mangum v. Raleigh Bd. of Adjust., (613PA07) 12/12/2008

HAT TIP UNDER THE DOME CLICKHERE

The neighbors in a North Carolina Supreme Court case involving a topless strip club and businesses who are directly effected by this special use permit given by the Raleigh Board of Adjustment have won this round of the argument Here is what was said.

BRADY, Justice.
In this case we determine the circumstances under which an adjacent property owner or property owner in close proximity has standing to challenge a Board of Adjustment's grant of a Special Use Permit. We hold that petitioners have standing to challenge the Raleigh Board of Adjustment's issuance of a Special Use Permit to PRS Partners, LLC and RPS Holdings, LLC. Thus, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals holding otherwise and remand this case to that court for determination of issues not reached by that court.

Here is what was said in conclusion

Because petitioners' allegations and testimony demonstrated the existence of special damages if the Special Use Permit were granted, petitioners have standing to challenge the issuance of the permit, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding otherwise. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to that court for determination of the remaining issues raised by respondents but not addressed by the Court of Appeals.

If you want to see the whole case click the title of this blog post above or go here UNDERTHEDOME

One interesting aspect of reading this case was the use of what happened back in 1969 with Jackson v. Guilford County Board of Adjustment.

Jackson v. Guilford Cty. Bd. of Adjust., 275 N.C. 155, 161, 166 S.E.2d 78, 82 (1969) (citations omitted). Additionally, [i]f . . . that which purports to be an amendment permitting a use of property forbidden by the original ordinance is, itself, invalid, the prohibition upon the use remains in effect. In that event, the owner of other land, who will be specially damaged by such proposed use, has standing to maintain a proceeding in the courts to prevent it.