Hirschman v. Chatham Cty.Â, 250 N.C. App. 349

American Tower, LLC and AT&T applied to Chatham County for a conditional‑use permit to build a monopole telecommunications tower; the Chatham County Board of Commissioners (BOC) approved the permit and filed its decision.
Nearby residents (petitioners) who would have the tower in plain view filed a petition for writ of certiorari in superior court seeking review of the BOC’s grant.
Petitioners named Chatham County as respondent but did not name the applicant (American Tower/AT&T) as a respondent in the petition.
Chatham County moved to dismiss, arguing the petition failed to comply with N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A‑393(e), which requires naming the applicant when the petitioner is not the applicant, and also argued petitioners lacked standing.
The superior court dismissed the petition with prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction because the applicant was not named; petitioners appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to name the applicant as a respondent under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A‑393(e) deprives the superior court of jurisdiction over a certiorari petition	MYC Klepper requires flexibility; naming error is harmless where the proper party had notice and participated	§ 160A‑393(e) uses mandatory language; petitioners were required to name the applicant, and failure is jurisdictional	Court held the omission was jurisdictional; dismissal affirmed because petitioners did not name the applicant as required
Whether trial court should have allowed amendment to add the applicant/respondent	Petitioners relied on Mize and Rule 15 to permit amendment and relation back	Defendant argued Rule 15 cannot be used to add a new party to confer jurisdiction; Crossman bars relation back to add parties	Court declined to permit amendment; statutory prerequisites for certiorari under § 160A‑393 are jurisdictional and cannot be cured post hoc

McCrann v. Village of Pinehurst, 216 N.C. App. 291 (2011) (failure to meet statutory deadline for certiorari is jurisdictional and deprives court of review)
Mize v. Mecklenburg County, 80 N.C. App. 279 (1986) (permitting amendment where petition met statutory filing requirements; predated § 160A‑393)
Crossman v. Moore, 341 N.C. 185 (1995) (Rule 15 does not permit relation back to add a new party‑defendant)
Dogwood Dev. & Mgmt. Co. v. White Oak Transp. Co., 362 N.C. 191 (2008) (compliance with appellate/jurisdictional procedural rules is the linchpin for appellate authority)
State v. Oates, 366 N.C. 264 (2012) (procedural compliance for appeals is jurisdictional; failure precludes review)
Caudle v. Morris, 158 N.C. 594 (1912) (appeal is not absolute right; appellant must follow statutes and rules to perfect appeal)