Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/1998

Home

Z.B. November 25, 1997 -- Page 5 the original site plan. They also claimed their appeal fell within a mootness exception stating an otherwise moot case could be heard if it presented an issue of public importance that was capable of repetition but likely to evade judicial review. DECISION: Appeal dismissed. The commission rendered the Baumers' appeal moot by subsequently approving a revised site plan that incorporated ail of the items it previously approved in the library's or/ginal site plan, which was the subject of the Baumers' appeal. The commission's decision on the revised site plan became final after the Baumers failed to appeal it. The Baumers' appeal of the original site plan couldn't substitute for a timely appeal of the revised plan's approval. Because they never appealed the revised plan there was no actual controversy regarding its approval, and the Baumers could not challenge the legality of that approval. The court re- fused to consider the Baumers' claim that their appeal wasn't moot because of potential constitutional claims-- the Baumers never raised the issue in their briefs. The Baumers' appeal didn't fall within the mootness exception. The trial court dismissed the Baumers' appeal because they failed to serve their com- plaint on the borough clerk. In the overwhelming majority of zoning appeals, courts ruled on questions involving such procedural issues. These issues often lasted long enough to receive appellate review. In addition, the frequency of those determinations showed that the issue would probably arise again. Fur- thermore, the determinations in those cases, unlike in this case, would not be- come moot prior to the court's judgment. see also: Gagnon v. Planning Commission, 588 A.2d 1385 (1991). Appeal -- Do county and landowner have identical interests in zoning interpretation? Cleland v. Gwinnet Count); 487 S.E. 2d 434 (Georgia) 1997 A developer began building a house on a lot next to Cleland's home in Gwinnet County, Ga. Cleland determined that based on the house's foundation, the homes would not have 10 feet between them as required by the local zoning ordinance and the subdivision plat. The county zoning ordinance required that detached single family homes have a minimum 5-foot yard on each side. The subdivision plat required a "combined total of 10 [feet] from roof tine to roof line" between houses, and included a draw- ing of a "typical lot layout" showing a distance of 10 feet between parallel houses. The developer applied for a variance, which was denied. The developer then revised the building plan by recessing a portion of the rear wall so that the nearest point to Cleland's house was slightly more than 10 feet away from the corner of her house, but keeping the front of the house as originally designed. Because of the way the two houses were located on their respective lots, a straight line drawn directly back from the front corner of the new house was still within 10 feet of Cleland's side wall. Apparently, even if the developer's house otherwise complied with the ordinance and the subdivision plat, its side yard could not have five feet between the house and the property