Opinion ID: 2393195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Other Theories for Standing

Text: The Private Party Appellants have advanced several additional theories in support of their standing. First, they argue Appellants Campbell and Kinsey have standing to challenge the annexation pursuant to a statuteSouth Carolina Code section 6-29-760(C) (2004)that grants the owners of adjoining land standing to challenge zoning changes. This statute is inapplicable because this lawsuit challenges annexation, not zoning. Second, the Private Party Appellants argue they will suffer an individualized injury sufficient to support standing because they personally enjoy the nature views and wildlife on the annexed property and their enjoyment would be harmed by the development of the property into commercial and residential units. This alleged harm is shared by all, and like Appellants' public trust claim, this argument, if accepted, would effectively overrule our decision in St. Andrews Public Service District. Finally, the Private Party Appellants argue that if they do not have standing under section 5-3-150(3), this denial of standing violates their due process and equal protection rights under the South Carolina Constitution. We have carefully reviewed these claims and find them to be manifestly without merit. We affirm the circuit court's decision on these issues pursuant to Rule 220(b)(1), SCACR and the following authorities: Lee v. S.C. Dep't of Natural Res., 339 S.C. 463, 467, 470 n. 4, 530 S.E.2d 112, 114-15 (2000) (setting forth the test for rational basis review of an equal protection claim and explaining that [a] legislative enactment will be sustained against constitutional attack if there is `any reasonable hypothesis' to support it, even if the hypothesis does not represent the actual motivations of the enacting governmental body); Rule 208(b)(1)(D), SCACR (requiring every issue raised in an appellant's brief to be followed by discussion and citations of authority). In sum, we hold the circuit court properly rejected each of the Private Party Appellants' arguments in support of standing. An annexation by 100% petition may be challenged only by a person who assert[s] an infringement of [his or her] own proprietary interests or statutory rights. St. Andrews Public Service District, 349 S.C. at 604, 564 S.E.2d at 648.