{ "id": 8373500, "name": "BARBARA GLOVER MANGUM, TERRY OVERTON, DEBORAH OVERTON, and VAN EURE, Petitioners-Appellees v. RALEIGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PRS PARTNERS, LLC, and RPS HOLDINGS, LLC, Respondents-Appellants", "name_abbreviation": "Mangum v. Raleigh Board of Adjustment", "decision_date": "2007-11-20", "docket_number": "No. COA06-1587", "first_page": "253", "last_page": "261", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "187 N.C. App. 253" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "431 S.E.2d 231", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 8, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "233", "parenthetical": "holding that \"evidence presented before the Board, that the requested construction would increase '[t]he negative impact' on the petitioner's property and 'would not be visually attractive,' is much too general].]\"" }, { "page": "232" }, { "page": "232", "parenthetical": "quoting Rathkopf's at 43.04[1]" }, { "page": "233", "parenthetical": "holding that \"[the petitioner's] allegation that it is the 'owner of adjoining property' does not satisfy the pleading requirement^]\"" }, { "page": "233" }, { "page": "233" }, { "page": "232" }, { "page": "233" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N.C. App. 767", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526432 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "770", "parenthetical": "holding that \"evidence presented before the Board, that the requested construction would increase '[t]he negative impact' on the petitioner's property and 'would not be visually attractive,' is much too general].]\"" }, { "page": "770" }, { "page": "770" }, { "page": "770" }, { "page": "770" }, { "page": "770" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/110/0767-01" ] }, { "cite": "397 S.E.2d 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "659", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N.C. App. 615", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527331 ], "year": 1990, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "618", "parenthetical": "citation omitted" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/100/0615-01" ] }, { "cite": "489 S.E.2d 898", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 7, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "900", "parenthetical": "quoting Allen v. City of Burlington Bd. of Adjustment, 100 N.C. App. 615, 618, 397 S.E.2d 657, 659 (1990) (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "900", "parenthetical": "citations omitted" }, { "page": "900-01" }, { "page": "901" }, { "page": "901" }, { "page": "901" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "127 N.C. App. 347", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11795758 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "350", "parenthetical": "quoting Allen v. City of Burlington Bd. of Adjustment, 100 N.C. App. 615, 618, 397 S.E.2d 657, 659 (1990) (citation omitted)" }, { "page": "351" }, { "page": "351" }, { "page": "352" }, { "page": "352" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/127/0347-01" ] }, { "cite": "575 S.E.2d 829", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "dismissing an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioners lacked standing" }, { "page": "831", "parenthetical": "holding that \"[the] [petitioners' mere averment that they own land in the immediate vicinity of the property for which the special use permit is sought ... is insufficient to confer standing upon them.\"" }, { "page": "831" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 N.C. App. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9190224 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2003, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "dismissing an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioners lacked standing" }, { "page": "215" }, { "page": "215" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/156/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E.2d 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 4, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "870" }, { "page": "870" }, { "page": "870" }, { "page": "871" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523215 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "613" }, { "page": "613" }, { "page": "614" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "577 S.E.2d 628", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 675", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511527, 1511629, 1511511, 1511639, 1511292 ], "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0675-01", "/nc/356/0675-02", "/nc/356/0675-03", "/nc/356/0675-05", "/nc/356/0675-04" ] }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 474", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "356 N.C. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 1511470, 1511275, 1511283, 1511174 ], "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/356/0610-02", "/nc/356/0610-04", "/nc/356/0610-03", "/nc/356/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "560 S.E.2d 875", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N.C. App. 320", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9127650 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "324" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/149/0320-01" ] }, { "cite": "574 S.E.2d 48", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "51", "parenthetical": "quoting Aubin v. Susi, 149 N.C. App. 320, 324, 560 S.E.2d 875, 878, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 610, 574 S.E.2d 474 (2002)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N.C. App. 110", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 9249087 ], "year": 2002, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "113", "parenthetical": "quoting Aubin v. Susi, 149 N.C. App. 320, 324, 560 S.E.2d 875, 878, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 610, 574 S.E.2d 474 (2002)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/155/0110-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 683, "char_count": 19151, "ocr_confidence": 0.753, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.267022623599536e-08, "percentile": 0.38670864594808424 }, "sha256": "3d0b186fa4600beefed70b1d32cb8c6ac07d10ed7e5a92889d83caec8e8f258f", "simhash": "1:0f8b5537d21e5c36", "word_count": 3043 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:19:56.575920+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges STEPHENS and SMITH concur." ], "parties": [ "BARBARA GLOVER MANGUM, TERRY OVERTON, DEBORAH OVERTON, and VAN EURE, Petitioners-Appellees v. RALEIGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PRS PARTNERS, LLC, and RPS HOLDINGS, LLC, Respondents-Appellants" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "McGEE, Judge.\nPRS Partners, LLC and RPS Holdings, LLC (Respondents) applied to the City of Raleigh Inspections Department on 15 November 2005 for a special use permit to operate a \u201c[Gentlemen\u2019s]/Topless Adult Upscale Establishment\u201d at 6713 Mt. Herman Road (the subject property) in Raleigh, North Carolina. The Raleigh Board of Adjustment (the Board) held a hearing on 9 January 2006 regarding issuance of the requested special use permit. At the hearing, Respondents and those in opposition to the requested permit introduced evidence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Board made numerous findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Board determined Respondents were entitled to a special use permit and the permit was issued.\nBarbara Glover Mangum, Terry Overton, Deborah Overton, and Van Eure (collectively Petitioners) filed a petition for writ of certio-rari on 24 March 2006 in Superior Court, Wake County. Petitioner Barbara Glover Mangum alleged she owned Triangle Equipment Company, Inc. and the real property on which it was located, which was immediately adjacent to the subject property. Petitioners Terry and Deborah Overton alleged they owned several properties immediately adjacent to the subject property, and that they owned Triangle Coatings, Inc., which was located on one of their properties. Petitioner Van Eure alleged she was the owner of the Angus Bam restaurant, located near the subject property. She further alleged that she, \u201cas well as patrons of the Angus Barn, will travel in close proximity to [the subject property] and will be affected by the proposed use of [the subject property].\u201d Petitioners further alleged in the petition that they, \u201cas adjoining landowners, testified [at the hearing before the Board] regarding the adverse effects the proposed Adult Establishment would have on their properties, including concerns regarding inadequate parking, safety and security, stormwater runoff, trash, and noise.\u201d\nRespondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition for writ of cer-tiorari for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, Respondents argued that Petitioners lacked standing to contest the issuance of the special use permit. In an order entered 12 September 2006, the trial court denied Respondents\u2019 motion to dismiss and reversed the Board\u2019s decision approving Respondents\u2019 application for a special use permit. Respondents appeal.\nRespondents argue, the trial court erred by denying their motion to dismiss Petitioners\u2019 writ of certiorari petition for lack of standing. We agree. \u201c \u2018Standing is a necessary prerequisite to a court\u2019s proper exercise of subject matter jurisdiction.\u2019 \u201d Neuse River Found., Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 155 N.C. App. 110, 113, 574 S.E.2d 48, 51 (2002) (quoting Aubin v. Susi, 149 N.C. App. 320, 324, 560 S.E.2d 875, 878, disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 610, 574 S.E.2d 474 (2002)), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 675, 577 S.E.2d 628 (2003). A trial court\u2019s determination of standing is reviewed de novo. Id. at 114, 574 S.E.2d at 51.\nPursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-388(b) (2005), \u201cany person aggrieved\u201d may appeal the decision of a zoning officer to the Board of Adjustment. Further, under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 160A-388(e2) (2005), an \u201caggrieved party\u201d may appeal a Board of Adjustment decision to superior court by filing a petition for writ of certiorari. Thus, a petitioner will have standing to seek review of the decision of a Board of Adjustment if the petitioner is an \u201caggrieved party\u201d within the meaning of the statute. See Heery v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 61 N.C. App. 612, 613, 300 S.E.2d 869, 870 (1983). However, if a petitioner is not an aggrieved party, and therefore does not have standing, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. See Sarda v. City/Cty. of Durham Bd. of Adjust., 156 N.C. App. 213, 575 S.E.2d 829 (2003) (dismissing an appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioners lacked standing).\nWe must determine whether Petitioners are aggrieved parties with standing to contest the decision of the Board. \u201cAn aggrieved party is one who either shows a legal interest in the property affected or, in the case of a \u2018nearby property owner, [shows] some special damage, distinct from the rest of the community, amounting to a reduction in value of [that owner\u2019s] property.\u2019 \u201d Lloyd v. Town of Chapel Hill, 127 N.C. App. 347, 350, 489 S.E.2d 898, 900 (1997) (quoting Allen v. City of Burlington Bd. of Adjustment, 100 N.C. App. 615, 618, 397 S.E.2d 657, 659 (1990) (citation omitted)). Further, the damages that are alleged to result from the zoning action cannot be too general; the petitioner must present evidence that it \u201cwill or has suffered . . . pecuniary loss to its property\u201d as a result of the zoning action. Kentallen, Inc. v. Town of Hillsborough, 110 N.C. App. 767, 770, 431 S.E.2d 231, 233 (1993) (holding that \u201cevidence presented before the Board, that the requested construction would increase \u2018[t]he negative impact\u2019 on the petitioner\u2019s property and \u2018would not be visually attractive,\u2019 is much too general].]\u201d).\nMoreover, a petitioner cannot merely allege aggrieved party status. \u201cThe petition must . . . allege \u2018the manner in which the value or enjoyment of [the] [petitioner\u2019s] land has been or will be adversely affected.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 769, 431 S.E.2d at 232 (quoting 3 Edward H. Ziegler, Jr., Rathkopf\u2019s The Law of Zoning and Planning \u00a7 43.04[1] (1993) (footnote omitted)). \u201cOnce the petitioner\u2019s aggrieved status is properly put in issue, the trial court must, based on the evidence presented, determine whether an injury \u2018has resulted or will result from [the] zoning action.\u2019 \u201d Id. at 770, 431 S.E.2d at 232 (quoting Rathkopf\u2019s at 43.04[1]).\nRespondents first argue the trial court erred by relieving Petitioners of their burden to show they were aggrieved parties. We agree. In its order, the trial court specifically concluded:\n1. By its express terms, the Raleigh City Code protects \u201cadjacent properties\u201d by requiring the Board to make findings regarding the secondary effects of the proposed Adult Establishment on such adjacent properties. The Code also specifically recognizes that Adult Establishments \u201cbecause of their very nature\u201d have \u201cserious objectionable operational characteristics\u201d that extend into surrounding neighborhoods. \u00a7 10-2144(3), (4).\n2. Petitioners therefore have standing based on the ordinance itself, and the line of cases which otherwise require proof of distinct \u201cspecial damages\u201d in order to have standing to challenge a quasi-judicial zoning decision pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. [\u00a7] 160A-388(e2) [is] not apposite. Because Petitioners, as adjacent and nearby landowners, fall within the class of property-owners expressly granted protection by the Raleigh City Code, this Court finds that Petitioners have standing to seek review of the Board\u2019s decision granting the Special Use Permit.\nWe hold that the trial court\u2019s reliance on the Raleigh City Code was misplaced. The Raleigh City Code provisions relied upon by the trial court do not purport to address the issue of standing to contest a zoning decision. Rather, the right to petition a trial court for a writ of cer-tiorari is governed by statute. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-388(e2). Moreover, the trial court\u2019s ruling contravenes longstanding precedent that mere ownership of adjoining property is insufficient to establish a petitioner\u2019s standing. See Sarda, 156 N.C. App. at 215, 575 S.E.2d at 831 (holding that \u201c[the] [petitioners\u2019 mere averment that they own land in the immediate vicinity of the property for which the special use permit is sought ... is insufficient to confer standing upon them.\u201d); Kentallen, 110 N.C. App. at 770, 431 S.E.2d at 233 (holding that \u201c[the petitioner\u2019s] allegation that it is the \u2018owner of adjoining property\u2019 does not satisfy the pleading requirement^]\u201d). Therefore, the trial court erred by concluding that Petitioners had standing based solely on provisions of the Raleigh City Code.\nRespondents next argue the trial court erred by concluding, in the alternative, that \u201cthe Petition and the Certified Record include allegations regarding increased traffic, increased water runoff, parking, and safety concerns sufficient to establish \u2018special damages\u2019 for purposes of standing.\u201d We agree.\nIn the present case, Petitioners did not sufficiently allege \u201caggrieved party\u201d status. In the petition for writ of certiorari, Petitioner Barbara Glover Mangum alleged she was the owner of real property \u2022immediately adjacent to the subject property, and that she owned Triangle Equipment Company, Inc., situated on her real property. Petitioners Terry and Deborah Overton alleged they owned several properties immediately adjacent to the subject property, and that they owned Triangle Coatings, Inc., situated on one of their properties. Petitioner Van Eure alleged she was the owner of the Angus Barn restaurant, located near the subject property. She also alleged that she, \u201cas well as patrons of the Angus Bam, will travel in' close proximity to [the subject property] and will' be affected by the proposed use of [the subject property].\u201d These allegations are insufficient to establish Petitioners\u2019 standing as they merely allege ownership of adjacent or nearby property. See Sarda, 156 N.C. App. at 215, 575 S.E.2d at 831; Kentallen, 110 N.C. App. at 770, 431 S.E.2d at 233.\nPetitioners did allege in the petition for writ of certiorari that \u201cPetitioners, as adjacent landowners, testified regarding the adverse effects the proposed Adult Establishment would have on their properties, including concerns regarding inadequate parking, safety and security, stormwater runoff, trash, and noise.\u201d However, Petitioners did not allege that they would suffer \u201c \u2018special damages distinct from the rest of the community.\u2019 \u201d Lloyd, 127 N.C. App. at 351, 489 S.E.2d at 900 (citations omitted).\nIn Lloyd, the intervenors alleged ownership of property in the vicinity of the property for which the variances were sought and also alleged that the variances would have a material adverse effect upon the value of the intervenors\u2019 properties. Id. However, because the petitioners did not specify how the granting of the variances at issue would cause them special damages, distinct from the rest of the community, our Court held that the trial court erred by granting the inter-venors\u2019 motion to intervene. Id. at 351, 489 S.E.2d at 900-01. Moreover, in Heery, the petitioners alleged they would suffer a decline in the value of their properties by the granting of the requested special use permit. Heery, 61 N.C. App. at 613, 300 S.E.2d at 870. However, \u201cthe petitioners failed to allege, and the Superior Court failed to find, that [the] petitioners would be subject to \u2018special damages\u2019 distinct from the rest of the community. Without a claim of special damages, the petitioners are not \u2018aggrieved\u2019 persons . . . and they have no standing.\u201d Id. at 614, 300 S.E.2d at 870.\nAs in Lloyd and Heery, Petitioners in the present case failed to allege how they would be subject to special damages, distinct from the rest of the community, by the granting of the special use permit. Accordingly, Petitioners failed to plead sufficient special damages, and the trial court erred by denying Respondents\u2019 motion to dismiss.\nEven assuming, arguendo, that Petitioners properly alleged aggrieved party status, we hold there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that Petitioners would sustain special damages. Furthermore, the trial court failed to make such a finding, merely determining that Petitioners had stated \u201callegations\u201d sufficient to establish special damages. See Lloyd, 127 N.C. App. at 351, 489 S.E.2d at 901 (stating: \u201cAssuming arguendo [the] intervenors properly alleged they would be \u2018aggrieved\u2019 by grant of the variances, . . . the record reveals no evidence which would sustain a finding by the trial court of special damages to which [the] intervenors might be subjected, nor did the trial court\u2019s order contain such a finding, merely providing that it appeared the \u2018motion should be allowed.\u2019 \u201d).\nIn the present case, LaMarr Bunn (Mr. Bunn), a licensed landscape architect and a licensed real estate broker, testified for Petitioners at the hearing before the Board. Mr. Bunn testified that the proposed parking plans on the subject property would be inadequate, and that \u201c[p]atrons of the proposed use will park not only along Mt. Herman Road, but also in the lots and driveways of the adjacent businesses which then would have to care for the trash and other items being strewn on other business properties.\u201d Mr. Bunn further testified that the stormwater plans for the subject property were inadequate.\nMr. Bunn also testified that he had conducted a review of 911 calls from two businesses similar to Respondents\u2019 proposed use. There had been over 400 calls made to 911 from those two businesses over the previous year, while no 911 calls had been made from the subject property. The Board allowed this testimony, and Mr. Bunn\u2019s testimony regarding traffic and transportation issues, as the bases for Mr. Bunn\u2019s opinions regarding valuation of Petitioners\u2019 properties. However, Mr. Bunn did not testify that the value of any of Petitioners\u2019 properties would decrease as a result of the proposed use on the subject property. Rather, Mr. Bunn merely raised the concerns cited above. The only testimony regarding a decrease in property value as a result of the special use permit concerned a property not owned by Petitioners. Mr. Bunn testified that the proposed use would decrease the value of a fifteen-acre lot across the street from the subject property, which property was not owned by Petitioners.\nPetitioner Barbara Glover Mangum testified she was \u201cconcerned\u201d about the parking plans. Specifically, she testified that\n[i]f even one vehicle were to park on that street, because it is such a narrow little street with no shoulders, if one car parks between a proposed club and my property, tractor trailers bringing my equipment in, my construction equipment in at night, would not be able to make the turn into my driveway.\nShe also testified that her property was lower in elevation than the subject property, and \u201cthat cause[d] [her] great concerns of flooding and water issues.\u201d She further stated that if Respondents were granted the special use permit, she would be \u201cscarefd]\u201d and \u201cfrighten[ed]\u201d for the safety and security of the people on Mt. Herman Road. Petitioner Terry Overton testified he was concerned about security on his property:\nI\u2019ve been in this particular area for 28 years in this same building and I\u2019ve only had 2 calls in 28 years for any kind of problem in my business whatsoever. And I don\u2019t think that would remain the case should I have an influx of more people coming in. That\u2019s my personal opinion.\nIn Lloyd, although the intervenors testified about the adverse effects of the granting of the variance, our Court held that \u201cnothing in the statements of [the] intervenors to the Board evidenced a dimin-ishment of property values or revealed an assertion of special damages \u2018distinct from the rest of the community.\u2019 \u201d Lloyd, 127 N.C. App. at 352, 489 S.E.2d at 901. In Kentallen, our Court held that evidence that \u201cthe requested construction would increase \u2018[t]he negative impact\u2019 on the petitioner\u2019s property and \u2018would not be visually attractive,\u2019 [was] much too general to support a finding that [the petitioner] will or has suffered any pecuniary loss to its property due to the issuance of the permit.\u201d Kentallen, 110 N.C. App. at 770, 431 S.E.2d at 233.\nLikewise, in the present case, Petitioners did not present any evidence that the value of their properties would decrease as a result of the issuance of the special use permit, or that they would suffer damages distinct from the rest of the community. See Lloyd, 127 N.C. App. at 352, 489 S.E.2d at 901. Moreover, the evidence presented by Petitioners at the hearing was too general and speculative to support a finding that \u201can injury \u2018has resulted or will result from [the] zoning action.\u2019 \u201d See Kentallen, 110 N.C. App. at 770, 431 S.E.2d at 232 (quoting Rathkopfs at \u00a7 43.04[1]). Accordingly, we hold the trial court erred by denying Respondents\u2019 motion to dismiss.\nThe order of the trial court is vacated, and the matter is remanded to the trial court for entry of an order (1) dismissing the petition for writ of certiorari filed 24 March 2006; (2) vacating the trial court\u2019s order entered 12 September 2006; and (3) reinstating the special use permit issued by the Board. See Kentallen, 110 N.C. App. at 770, 431 S.E.2d at 233; Heery, 61 N.C. App. at 614, 300 S.E.2d at 871. Because we determine that Petitioners lacked standing to contest the issuance of the special use permit, we do not address Respondents\u2019 remaining arguments.\nVacated and remanded.\nJudges STEPHENS and SMITH concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "McGEE, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Smith Moore LLP, by James L. Gale, David L. York, and Laura M. Loyek, for Petitioners-Appellees.", "Poyner & Spruill LLP, by Robin Tatum Currin and Keith H. Johnson, for Respondents-Appellants PRS Partners, LLC and RPS Holdings, LLC." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "BARBARA GLOVER MANGUM, TERRY OVERTON, DEBORAH OVERTON, and VAN EURE, Petitioners-Appellees v. RALEIGH BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, PRS PARTNERS, LLC, and RPS HOLDINGS, LLC, Respondents-Appellants\nNo. COA06-1587\n(Filed 20 November 2007)\n1. Zoning\u2014 special use permit \u2014 adjoining property owners\u2014 not aggrieved parties with standing\nAdjoining property owners were not aggrieved parties with standing to contest the decision of a city board of adjustment granting a special use permit to respondents for an adult entertainment establishment based on provisions of the city code because those provisions do not purport to address the issue of standing to contest a zoning decision; the right to petition a trial court for a writ of certiorari is governed by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 160A-388(e2); and mere ownership of adjoining property is insufficient to establish standing.\n2. Zoning\u2014 aggrieved parties \u2014 special use permit \u2014 adult entertainment establishment \u2014 adjoining property owners \u2014 failure to allege and prove special damages\nAllegations by petitioners, adjoining property owners, that an adult establishment would have adverse effects on their properties because of inadequate parking, safety and security concerns, stormwater runoff, trash and noise were insufficient to allege \u201caggrieved party\u201d status so as to give the petitioners standing to contest the decision of a city board of adjustment granting a special use permit for an adult entertainment establishment where petitioners failed to allege that they would suffer special damages distinct from the rest of the community. Even if petitioners properly alleged aggrieved party status, there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the values of their properties would decrease as a result of the issuance of the special use permit or that they would suffer special damages distinct from the rest of the community.\nAppeal by Respondents from order entered 12 September 2006 by Judge Narley L. Cashwell in Superior Court, Wake County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 August 2007.\nSmith Moore LLP, by James L. Gale, David L. York, and Laura M. Loyek, for Petitioners-Appellees.\nPoyner & Spruill LLP, by Robin Tatum Currin and Keith H. Johnson, for Respondents-Appellants PRS Partners, LLC and RPS Holdings, LLC." }, "file_name": "0253-01", "first_page_order": 283, "last_page_order": 291 }