Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Page 6- ~ebruary 15, 1996 Z.B. During Izoning hearings, several Vineville residents expressed concerns about lowered property values and increased traffic, noise, and crime. Resi- dents of th~ North Highland neighborhood spoke out about crime they expe- rienced wit~ the Kroger store in their neighborhood. However, no expert real estate appraiser, traffic engineer, land planner, or other expert witness testi- fied that V!neville residents would suffer great damage to any substantial interest. SeveralI people said they were concerned about the preservation of Vineville's ~istoric nature. However, despite the existence of the Kroger store in North Highland, the Macon Heritage Foundation said North Highland was about to be listed on the National Register of Historic Districts. In support of the rezoning, a petition was signed by 620 residents, includ- ing 11 of the 16 residents who lived next to the site. Testimony suggested projected tr4ffic increases associated with the zoning change would have only minimal impact. A representative from the police department said the Kroger store would hot bring any identifiable pattern of violent or drug-related criminal activity, and!Kroger said it intended to address resident concerns about crime. The zoning commission granted the request to rezone the property, and granted Kro~er conditional use approval and a certificate of appropriateness for its supermarket. The Vin~Ville Neighborhood Association appealed to court. The court found the zoning ~ommission abused its discretion by approving the rezoning and granting Krc~ger a conditional use and certificate of appropriateness. The court ordered Kroger not to use the property in a manner not authorized by zoning regulations. The zoning commission appealed. It argued the Neighborhood Associa- tion could n~t appeal its decision because the association was not sufficiently aggrieved bY, the zoning change. To challenge the rezoning, the association had to show !it had a substantial interest in the zoning decision and that this interest was .~n danger of some special damage or injury not common to all property owners similarly situated (i.e., the effect was more severe to the association tl~an to members of the general community who were merely incon- venienced b~ the change). DECISION: Reversed. The association did not have the right to ch.allenge the commission's zon- ing change. ~rhe association did not show it would be more severely affected than other area residents. The mere increase in traffic did not give the asso- ciation a subs!antial interest in the commission's rezoning de~ision. The rezon- ing was just the result of normal urban growth..It would be a dangerous pre- cedent to fin~ such an inconvenience gave people the right to override a commission'si decision any time they disagreed with it. Dunaway~v. City of Marietta, 308 S.E. 2d 823 (1983). Li~dsey ~reek Area Civic Assm v. Co~solidated Govt. of Columbus, 292 ? S.E.~d 90 (19i77).