Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/06/1996

Home

Z.B. January 15, :1996- Page 7 combined volume of aggregate to be mined, and even the use of the batch plant for processing aggregate extraction under the new authorization, could not be assumed just because the area in which mining operations were per- mitted increased. Appeal -- Property Owner Calls Appeal Procedure Unconstitutional Jackson v. Spalding County, 462 S.E. 2d 361 (Georgia) ]995 Jackson owned property in Spalding County, Ga. Jackson requested two variances from the county zoning ordinance's roof pitch requirements for manufactured homes. The county Board of Appeals held two hearings on the requests. During the hearings, Jackson explained why the variance was needed and presented letters, photographs, plats, and schedules of community prop- erty values in support of the application. Jackson answered the board's ques- tions, but did not question anyone else who testified. In considering Jackson's application, the board had to determine whether reasonable use of Jackson's land was possible under the ordinance, whether Jackson's claimed hardship was self-created, and whether the variance would cause substantial detriment to the public or impair the ordinance's purpose. The board denied the variance and explained its reasons for doing so. Later, the board sent a written notice confirming its decision. The county zoning ordinance provided that the method for appealing board decisions was to file for a writ of certiorari (an order correcting the errors of any person or entity who exercised judicial powers) with the trial court for the county. Jackson requested such a writ, but also .challenged that method of appeal as unconstitutional. Jackson said the ordinance violated due process because it denied judicial review of the board's decision. Jackson also said because the board did not follow judicial procedures, the board did not exer~ cise judicial powers. If the board was not a judicial body, the writ was an inappropriate remedy. Jackson also said the board's hearings violated due process. The board put in evidence a verbatim transcript of the first hearing and minutes that had a detailed account of the second hearing. The court decided the writ of certiorari was the proper method for appeal- ~ng the variance denial. Jackson asked the state's highest court to consider the question. DECISION: Affirmed. The ordinance properly specified certiorari as the method for appealing board decisions. The board's hearings did not violate Jackson's due process rights. The writ of certiorari was the proper method of appeal because the board exercised judicial powers in denying the variance. The board determined the facts and applied the ordinance's legal standards to them. To grant Jackson a variance, the board had to determine that reasonable use of the land was not possible under the ordinance, that Jackson did not create the claimed hard- ship, and that the variance would not cause substantial detriment to the pub- lic or impair the ordinance's purpose. This decision-making process was like a judicial decision.