Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/08/2011

Home

July 25, 2011 I Volume 5 1 No. 14 Zoning Bulletin Here, there was no valid law governing signs and billboards at the time the Sign Companies submitted their permit applications. There- fore, under their proper applications for a permit, the Sign Companies had a vested right to construct the billboards, concluded the court. The Cities had argued that the Sign Companies' rights did not vest because the Sign Companies did not own or have signed leasehold in- terests in all of the properties on which the signs were to be located. The court rejected this argument. It found the Cities failed to cite any authority for that proposition that only applicants with ownership or formal leasehold interest in the land may obtain vested rights. Rather, the court noted that Georgia law was clear that: "a party holding an option from the owner of the land, an agent of the owner, or a party standing in any contractual relationship with the owner of the land" whom "submits an application for a permit in accordance with appli- cable ordinances, ... is entitled to issuance of the permit." Here, the Sign Companies either owned the tract of land or had leases or infor- mal agreements with the landowners of the tracts on which the signs at issue were to be located. The Cities had also argued "that the subsequent creation of new cit- ies within unincorporated Fulton County ... divested the [S]ign [C]om- panies of their vested rights." The court also rejected this argument. The court noted that the Georgia Constitution, Article I, § I, Paragraph Z, "forbids passage of retroactive laws which injuriously affect the vested rights of citizens." The creation of the new Cities, thus, "could not constitutionally and retroactively divest these companies of their vested rights to construct signs pursuant to the applications they filed in [the] County at a time when [the] County had no valid sign regula- tions and the [C]ities did not yet exist." See also: Hayes v. Howell, 251 Ga. 580, 308 S.E.2d 170 (1983). See also: Recycle & Recover, Inc. v. Georgia Bd. of Natural Resources, 266 Ga. 253, 466 S.E.2d 197 (1996). Case Note: The Cities had also argued that the Sign Companies' vested rights were voided by Georgia Statutory law, OCGA S 36- 60-26. Section 36-60-26 prohibits the issuance by a county of backdated sign permits for an area no longer within its jurisdic- tion due to formation of a new city or annexation. The court also rejected this argument. The court noted that statute was not en- acted until "well after the time the [S]ign [C]ompanies filed their applications and it [could] not retroactively be applied to divest the [Sign] [C]ompanies of their vested rights." 6 © 2011 Thomson Reuters