Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/1999

Home

' Z.B. March 25, 1999 -- Page 5 effect on the highway and agreed to rezone the property. The state transportation department appealed to the county land use ap- peals board, arguing the rezoning violated state law. The department claimed the traffic study showed the proposed subdivision would have a significant effect on highway traffic, so the county shouldn't have rezoned the property without including traffic mitigation measures. According to the department, a "significant effect" occurred if as was the case here -,- the level of service was below the minimum before the amendment and the amendment would further reduce the highway's service caPacity, albeit not the service level itself. The board agreed with the transportation department and ordered the county to reconsider Menasha's rezoning request. Menasha appealed to court, arguing its proposed subdivision wouldn't have a "significant effect" on traffic unless the level of service dropped from E to F. It claimed the department's interpretation would prevent any amendment that affected a highway's capacity by as little as a single car, if the highway's level of service was already below the acceptable minimum. The department said any other interpretation would allow unlimited reduc- tions in capacity and level of service Simply because the highway was already below the minimum acceptable level. DECISION: Reversed, and returned to the board. The board had to affirm the county's rezoning decision. Menasha's rezon'- lng request didn't have a significant effect on traffic. For an amendment to have a significant effect under the statute, whatever else the amendment may or may not have to do, it had to "reduce the level of service." Menasha's proposed rezoning did not do that. The highway's level of service was at E before the county rezoned the property, ' and it remained at E after the rezoning. The transportation department's real concern was that the county's inter- pretation would allow an amendment that would drop a service level all the way from B to F, if the minimum acceptable level for the highway was A and the level at the time of the amendment was B. This was an issue for the state Legislature, not the court, to address. Special Use -- Company challenges denial of special use permit for auto service center Citation: Gwinnett County v. Ehler Enterprises Inc., Supreme Court of Georgia, No. S98A1472 (1999) Ehler Enterprises Inc. wanted to build a tire store and auto service center in Gwinnett County, Ga. The proposed site was zoned general business, which allowed the "retail- ing of major goods and services, general office facilities and public functions." The tire store and auto service center would be allowed by right in a highway business district. The intent behind the highway business zone was to provide