In Arizona, a person "aggrieved" by a zoning decision of a legislative body or board may appeal that decision by special action to the superior court. A.R.S. 9-462.06(K) (1996). Arizona Revised Statutes 9-462.06(K) states: "A person aggrieved by a decision of the legislative body or board . . . may . . . file a complaint for special action in the superior court . . . ." We do not consider the "aggrieved person" standard to create a substantially different test than that set forth in Buckelew v. Town of Parker, Blanchard v. Show Low Planning & Zoning Comm'n, and the related cases. To have standing to bring such an action, however, a plaintiff must allege "particularized harm" resulting from the decision. Blanchard, 196 Ariz. at 118, P24, 993 P.2d at 1082. The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact, economic or otherwise." Aegis of Arizona, L.L.C. v. Town of Marana, 206 Ariz. 557, 562, P16, 81 P.3d 1016, 1021 (App. 2003) (quoting Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 152, 90 S. Ct. 827, 25 L. Ed. 2d 184 (1970)). The damage alleged must be peculiar to the plaintiff or at least more substantial than that suffered by the community at large. Blanchard, 196 Ariz. at 118, P20, 993 P.2d at 1082. General economic losses or general concerns regarding aesthetics in the area without a particularized palpable injury to the plaintiff are typically not sufficient to confer standing. Id. Finally, although proximity is a factor in determining whether a plaintiff has standing, the plaintiff must still demonstrate special damages or particularized harm. Id. Perper v. Pima County, 123 Ariz. 439, 441, 600 P.2d 52, 54 (App. 1979).