Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/1998

Home

Z.B. August 25, 1998 --Page 7 noise problem would only increase if the board approved a 10-dog kennel. And the proposed kennel was 2,244 square feet -- more than enough room to house more than 10 dogs in the future. see also: Columbus Board ofZoningAppeals u Big Blue, 605 N. E. 2d 188 (1992). Appeal m Can civic association challenge zoning decision? Citation: DeKatb County v. Druid Hills CiviI Association Inc., Supreme Court of Georgia, Nos. S98A0229 & S98A0343 (1998) The Druid Hills Civil Association was made up of citizens in DeKalb County, Ga. The group was displeased with the county board of commissioner's vote on an appeal of a zoning board decision. The group didn't own property that was affected by the decision. The association sued the county, seeking a court order requiring the board of commissioners to act on the zoning appeal.' The county claimed the association had no right to challenge a zoning decision because it didn't own any property that was affected by the decision. The court disagreed with"the county. It issued the order the association requested. The county appealed. DECISION: Reversed; order vacated. The association couldn't challenge the county's zoning decision because neither the association nor any of its members owned property that was affected by the decision. Zoning ordinances and zoning decisions couldn't be challenged by anyone interested in having the zoning laws enforced. To challenge or enforce a zoning decision, the party had to have a special interest in the decision. Finding otherwise would give a procedural advantage to remote parties as oPposed to those who were directly affected by the decision. This was because remote parties, like the civil association in this case, would be able to proceed directly to court, while parties directly affected by the zoning decision had to exhaust ali administrative remedies before suing. Zoning Official ,,. Committee member is convicted of money laundering after she agrees not to oppose rezoning Citatio~: State of Arizona v. Lefevre, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Div. J, Dept. C, No. I CA-CR 97-0158 (1998) The Dartmouth Group and The Shores at Rainbow Lake wanted to rezone their properties in Phoenix for commercial use. Under the city's zoning regula- tions, an urban village planning committee, appointed by the city council and composed of volunteers, had to review the application and make a recommenda- tion to the city planning commission. The commission would then make a recom- mendation to the city council, which would decide whether to rezone the property.