Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/15/2015

Home

August 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 16 Zoning Bulletin ing use of the Property as a commercial venue, in violation of the County Zoning Ordinance. The County Zoning Ordinance provided that an R-6 district was "designed to encourage the formation and continuance of a stable, healthy environment for one -family dwellings." (County Zoning Ordinance, § 701.1.) To promote the desired "low-to-medium density residential" development in R-6 districts, the County Zoning Ordinance expressly aimed "to discourage any encroachment by commercial, industrial, high density residential, or other uses capable of adversely af- fecting the single-family residential character of the district." (County Zoning Ordinance, § 701.1.) In furtherance of that purpose, the County Zoning Ordinance generally limited the use of property situated in R-6 zoning districts to "[o]ne-family dwelling[s]" and "accessory uses." (County Zoning Ordinance, § 701.2.) A "dwelling" was defined as "[a] building or portion of a building designed for or occupied for residential purposes" and explicitly excluded hotels, motels, and similar "accom- modations used for more or less transient [guests]." (County Zoning Ordinance, § 302.) A "one -family dwelling" was defined as "[a] detached dwelling . . . designed for or occupied exclusively by one family." (County Zoning Ordinance, § 302.) An "accessory use" was defined as a use "which is customarily accessory and clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use." (County Zoning Ordinance, § 302 and § 609.) The County issued the Burtons a cease and desist letter, contending that their operation of the Property was not a permitted use in the R-6 district. The Burtons responded by suing the County. They argued that enforc- ing the Zoning Ordinance against them violated their constitutional rights to due process. They argued that the Zoning Ordinance was vague in that it failed to quantify precisely the point at which the hosting of large functions on an R-6 property crossed the line from a permissible use "accessory" to a one -family dwelling to an impermissible primary use. The trial court concluded that "[the] Burtons' permissible accessory use of their property to host a wedding or social event ha[d] become the primary use of their property, and the magnitude, frequency, and cumulative impact thereof ha[d] moved beyond that expected or cus- tomary for a one -family dwelling." Thus finding that the Burtons' use of the Property fell outside the normal scope of residential property use, the trial court concluded that the Burtons' use violated the County Zoning Ordinance. The Burtons appealed. DECISION: Judgment of trial court affirmed in relevant part. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with the trial court. The court 10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters