Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 16 <br />held that the Burtons' use of their property as an event venue moved be- <br />yond that expected or customary for a one -family dwelling, in violation <br />of the County Zoning Ordinance. <br />In so holding, the court construed the Zoning Ordinance, giving "ef- <br />fect to the intention of the lawmaking body." Looking at the language <br />and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance, the court concluded that "the <br />frequency of the events and the apparently systematic manner in which <br />the [P]roperty ha[d] been marketed and utilized for large-scale gather- <br />ings support[ed] the conclusion that the [P]roperty's use as an event <br />venue ha[d], as the trial court found, `moved beyond that expected or <br />customary for a one -family dwelling.' " <br />With regard to the Burtons' due process vagueness challenge, the <br />court said that an ordinance need not regulate with "mathematical <br />certainty" to comport with due process. Even where the zoning ordinance <br />may be imprecise in certain situations, if the ordinance clearly applies to <br />a landowner, the landowner may not challenge it on the basis that it may <br />be unconstitutionally vague when applied to others, said the court. Here, <br />the court found that the Zoning Ordinance here was sufficiently specific <br />for "persons of common intelligence" to recognize that the Burtons' use <br />of the Property did not qualify as a permissible use in an R-6 district. <br />See also: Cawthon v. Douglas County, 248 Ga. 760, 286 S.E.2d 30 <br />(1982). <br />See also: 105 Floyd Road, Inc. v. Crisp County, 279 Ga. 345, 613 <br />S.E.2d 632 (2005). <br />Case Note: <br />The Burtons has also argued that enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance against <br />thein violated their equal protection rights since events were sometimes held on <br />rental properties in neighboring areas. The court rejected this claim, finding <br />that the Burtons failed to adduce evidence to support it. The Burtons presented <br />no evidence of properties that had hosted a similar volume of events or had <br />spawned complaints from community members. Thus, the court concluded that <br />the Burtons had failed to establish unequal treatment so as to give rise to an <br />equal protection claim. <br />Zoning News from Around the <br />Nation <br />HAWAII <br />Governor David Ige recently signed into law HB 321 (now Act 241) <br />© 2015 Thomson Reuters 11 <br />