Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin May 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 I Issue 10 Zoning Ordinance did not apply to their buildings and land incidental to the agricul- tural use. The court disagreed, noting that the Zoning Ordinance specifically provided regulations for agricultural and residential zones related to accessory buildings and fencing. The court found that the Pahls' lean-tos, sheds, wheelless semi -trailers, and fencing all failed to comply with those regulations. Nonconforming Use—Opponents of nonconforming landfill say property owner's vested right lapsed for failure to commence use within time required by zoning ordinance Property owner argues obtaining certificate of zoning compliance was sufficient commencement of use to maintain vested right Citation: Southern States -Bartow County, Inc. v. River -wood Farm Property Owners Ass 'n, Inc., 769 S.E.2d 823 (Ga. Ct. App. 2015) GEORGIA (03/25/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether a developer's vested rights to a nonconforming use on the property lapsed subject to a zoning ordinance that prohibited the nonconforming uses for which a vested right is acquired unless the use is commenced within one year of adoption of the ordinance. The Background/Facts: In 1989, Southern States -Bartow County, Inc. ("Southern States") filed an application with the Georgia Environmental Protection Division ("EPD") to develop and operate a solid -waste landfill on property that it owned in Bartow County (the "County"). In connection with that application, Southern States was required to obtain a certificate of zoning compliance from the County, demonstrating that the landfill complied with lo- cal zoning and land -use ordinances. However, at that time, the County's ap- plicable zoning ordinances did not allow for a landfill on the subject property. Consequently, the County refused Southern States' request for a certificate of zoning compliance. Eventually, in a separate but somewhat related action, the Supreme Court of Georgia declared the County zoning ordinance to be invalid on the ground that the County failed to comply with the Zoning Procedures Law. As a result, the Supreme Court held that there was "no valid restriction on the property, and [that Southern States had] the right under the law to use the property as it so desire[d]." The Superior Court then issued an order, in which it ruled that because no valid zoning ordinance controlled in 1989 when Southern States submitted its landfill-pennit application, Southern States had "a vested right to obtain a certificate of the right to use their real property without county land use restrictions . . . despite the enactment of a subsequent zoning ordinance." © 2015 Thomson Reuters 5