Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

.'~':"'. " December 10, 20081 Volume 21 No. 23 Rezone (Pr~)(epure)-Property owner submits application for rezoning, but fails to include required site plan Nevertheless, the county approves the requested rezone' , , Citation,: Harden v. Banks County Bd. of Com'rs, 2008 WL 4764819 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) In June 2006, Bobby Caudell applied to the county, seeking' a rezone of his property from an "agricultural-rural residential" use to a single- family residential district appropriate for a subdivision. Caudell did not submit a formal site plan with his application. However, his application did include an aerial survey of the property. It also included a brief, nar- rative description of the subdivision he proposed for his property. The county zoning ordinance (the "Ordinance") required applicants to submit a sit~ plan containing specific information, including: prop- erty boundaries; existing and proposed streets; water courses; and the ,proposed development's "physical characteristics." Although Caudell did not include a formal site plan with his application, the zoning offi- cer who reviewed his application concluded that the aerial survey, which outlined the property lines and existing road bordering the property, sat- isfied the Ordinance's site plan requirement. The zoning officer recommended that the county plann4Ig commis- sion (the "Commission") approve Caudell's application. The Commis- sion approved the application and forwarded it to the county board of commissioners (the "Board.") Ultimately, the Board approved Caudell's application for rezone. The Hardens, who owned property a,djacent to Caudell's property, ap- pealed the Board's decision to court. They challenged the rezone, arguing that the Board could not approve Caudell's rezoning application because it did ri()t include a site plan. They asserted that: (1) by failing to obtain a site pl;m, the :Board deprived them of fair notice regarding Caudell's ap- plication; and (2) the notice requirement of zoning ordinances required .1 strictlcompliance. The trial court rejected the Hardens' challenge. It found the county enacted the site plan requirement to aid the Board in its zoning decision, not eo provide notice to concerned neighbors. The trial court affirmed the :Board's decision. t ) The Hardens appealed. DECISION: Reversed aild remanded with direction. @ 200'8 Thomson Reuters/West 11 55 '