Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin The court concluded that the Board erred in approving Caudell's re- zone request because: (t) they ignored mandatory zoning requirements; and (2) in failing to require a site plan, hindered their ability to. analyze required criteria relating to the proposed subdivision development. The court explained that, "[g]enerally, when neighbors of rezoned property challenge the rezoning in court on its merits, it will be set aside only if fraud or corruption is shown or the rezoning power is being man- ifestly abused to the oppression of the neighbors." However, a zoning case could also be remanded "if the local authority failed to follow its own zoning proc~dures." . Without addressing whether a site plan provided notice to neighbors or aided the Board, the court concluded that its inclusion was mandato- ry. The Ordinance required that site plans be included with applications. As such, the Board could not approve rezoning applications that did not include a site plan.. Moreover, the Ordinance required county officials to review rezone applications based on specific criteria, such as the land use, development suitability, and the impact of the rezoning on nearby property. Without a site plan, the Board's ability to analyze the required criteria was hindered. The Board had little information about Caudell's actual proposed use and how that use would affect the property. Accordingly, the court remanded the case, directing the trial court to return the case to the Board "for further consideration in compliance with applicable zoning requirements." See also: Helmley v. Liberty County, 242 Ga. App. 881, 531 S.E.2d 756 (2000). . Case Note: Noting that zoning regulations had to be strictly com- plied with, the court found that the aerial survey was not sufficient to satisfy the "site plan" requirement. :~ } r't ,i ,:. '! . ,1' [~~II~t!~t~~lillll~~~~;"K'F'C 12 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 56 .~ l \ I I I I