Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/08/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin July 25, 2011 I Volume 5 I No. 14 hibited under the County sign ordinance (the "Ordinance"), and de- nied the applications. The Sign Companies then sued the County. They argued the Ordi- nance was unconstitutional. While that case was pending, in a separate appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia determined that the Ordinance was unconstitutional under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Thereafter, finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute and deciding the matter on the law alone, the trial court in the Sign Companies' case then issued summary judgment in favor of the Sign Companies. The court found that since the Ordinance was invalid at the time of the Sign Companies' applications for permits, the Sign Companies "had a vested right to erect their billboards and ordered that they be allowed to erect the billboards." Meanwhile, the unincorporated areas of the County where the Sign Companies had intended to erect billboards became incorporated into new cities (the "Cities"). The County claimed it no longer had juris- diction to issue permits to the Sign Companies, so the Sign Companies sued the Cities. The trial court in that case agreed that the Sign Com- panies had a vested right to erect the billboards as of the date their ap- plications were filed. The Cities and the County appealed. They argued that the trial court erred by granting summary judgment to the Sign Companies and ordering them to permit construction of the signs at issue. DECISION: Affirmed. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the Sign Companies had a vested right to construct the billboards at issue. As an initial matter, the court noted that the entire County Sign Or- dinance had been struck down as unconstitutional —not just the regula- tory provisions applicable to billboards. As wholly void, the Ordinance was "of no force and effect from the date it was enacted." As such, it "could not be used as the basis for the denial of the [S]ign [C]ompanies' applications," explained the court. Since the County Ordinance was in- valid, there was no valid restriction on the construction of billboards in the County. Therefore, the Sign Companies obtained vested rights in the issuance of the permits they sought, said the court. In so holding, the court explained that "vested rights" are: "interests which it is proper for [the] state to recognize and protect and of which [the] individual cannot be deprived arbitrarily without justice." Thus, if an applicant submits a proper application for a permit, the applicant has a vested right to consideration of the application under the law in existence at the time the application was filed. © 2011 Thomson Reuters