Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/1998

Home

Page 8 -- March 25, 1998 z.g. minimal impact on local traffic. Although a number of residents testified about traffic congestion in the area, none of them testified about the impact the proposed facility would have on traffic. The politician who testified clearly stated he was giving o.nly his opinion, and the zoning violations he alleged were refuted by the developer's engineer. see also:In Re Rocky Point Plaza Cobp., 621 N.E. 2d 566 (1993). see also:Community Governed Citizens Inc. v. Union T. qwnship Board of Zoning Appeals, 613 N.E. 2d 580 (1993). . Administrative Review -- City denies business license for lingerie sales and modeling business She Inc. V. West, Supreme Court of Georgia, No. S97A2033 (1998) She Inc. and the Isaacs applied for a business license to run a lingerie sales and modeling business in the city of Gainesville, Ga. The city denied the Isaacs a business license on technical grounds -- their application didn't include the necessary certificate of occupancy. The Isaacs then applied for a certificate of occupancy, but couldn't get it without a build- ing permit. They applied for a building permit, but the city denied their appli- cation for technical reasons. The city code outlined the administrative procedures for challenging the interpretation and enforcement of its zoning laws. All questions had to be pre- sented first to the chief building inspector. Anyone aggrieved by the building inspector's decision had to appeal within 30 days to the zoning board of adjust- ment. A zoning board's decision could then be appealed to court. The Isaacs never appealed the denial of their applications to the zoning board of adjustment, as required by the city code. Instead, they sued the mayor, seeking a court order requiring the city to issue them a building permit, a cer- tificate of occupancy, and a business license. The court dismissed the Isaacs' lawsuit, and they appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The trial cour. t properly dismissed the Isaacs' lawsuit. Even if the Isaacs were entitled to a business license when they applied for it, the trial court prop- erly dismissed their lawsuit. The Isaacs might have been entitled to a business license. If the condition of their building didn't comply with the city building code, they would have been entitled to a business license contingent on their bringing their building up to code. Instead of appealing the denial of their building permit or certifi- cate of occupancy applications to the zoning board of adjustment, though, the Isaacs chose to sue the mayor. Because they had an adequate legal remedy that they failed to pursue -- administrative appeals the trial court properly con- cluded they had no right to ask a court to order the city to issue them a business license, certificate of occupancy, or building permit. see also:Inner Visions Ltd. V. City of Smyrna, 400 S.E. 2d 915 (1991). see also: Dougherty County v. Webb, 350 S.E. 2d 457 (.[986). ¢'7