Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/05/1998

Home

Z.B. April 10, 1998-- Page 7 field would have much less impact on traffic than other uses in the area, like a nearby 24-hour gas station. He said the high school that was less than half a mile away handled 185 to 200 cars per day, and had many more than that during weekend football, soccer, and basketball games. He also noted a nearby church had 20 to 30 cars each Sunday, and ran a daycare center on weekdays. The court affirmed the board's decision. Fallang appealed, claiming the board's decision wasn't supported by r~liable and substantial evidence. He claimed that "not one single instance of adverse impact on the surrounding properties was documented." DECISION: Reversed. The trial court should have reversed the board's decision, which wasn't supported by any substantial evidence. The board should have allowed Fallang to run a commercial paintball field as a conditional use. Fallang's proposal would have less impact on the surrounding area than other nearby properties. The gas station, high school, and church would all have a greater impact on traffic than would the paintball field. The paintball games would generate less traffic than a family cookout, while the high school handled 185 to 200 cars per day and many more during sporting events. Even the church would generate more traffic on Sundays. Ali of the residents' comments could be characterized as specuIation over how Fallang's activities "might" lead to more commercial activity in the area. There was no actual evidence showing how Fallang's proposed use would adversely impact the health, safety, or welfare of the surrounding area. Moreover, the restrictions on Fallang's use proposed by the board's own staff-- would have minimized any impact the paintball games would have on the surrounding area. The restriction on the field's layout would ensure that none of the neighboring properties would be affected by errant Paintballs, because the range of paintball guns was less than 75 yards. As long as Fallang complied with the 75-yard setback, livestock couldn't be affected by 'errant paintballs. see also: EIbert v. Bexley Planning Commission, 670 N.E. 2d 245 (1996). Rezoning m Neighbor sues developer to enforce rezoning condition Harrell v. Little Pup Development and Construction Inc., Supreme Court of Georgia, No. S98A0217 (I998) Little Pup Development and Construction Inc. asked the Lowndes County (Ga.) Board of Commissioners to rezone Little Pup's property to single-family resi- dential use. Little Pup planned to build a residential subdivision on the property. The board conditionally approved Little Pup's request. One of the condi- tions required Little Pup to modify its plans so the subdivision would have an entrance and exit onto only Bemiss-Knights Academy (BKA) Road. Despite the board's condition, Little Pup created a temporary entrance to its subdivision from the dead-end of Mayfield Lane. It apparently made this temporary entrance because BKA Road had yet to be paved. The Harrells lived