Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/04/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 8 acquired a vested right to obtain a certificate of the right to use its real property without county use restrictions. Thereafter, the County issued a certificate of zoning compliance to SSBC. For another 20 years, the County continued to issue certification letters confirming SSBC's vested right to use the property as a landfill. Eventually, in 2013, the EPD finally issued a solid -waste handling permit to SSBC, allowing SSBC's property to be developed into a landfill. A group of private property owners (the "Landowners") then filed a legal action, asking the court to declare that the approved landfill violated the County zoning ordinances. The trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Landowners. SSBC appealed. The Court of Appeals concluded, among other things, that: SSBC's vested right to use the land as a landfill was acquired as of the date of its May 1989 application to the EPD; and the vested right was governed by Section 6.1.4 of the Ordinance. The Court of Appeals concluded that, under the plain language of Section 6.1.4, SS13C's vested right had lapsed after SSBC failed to commence the non -conforming use of its property "within one year —or even within ten years —of the adoption of the [O]rdinance." SSBC had also argued that Section 6.1.4 was unconstitutional as applied to SSBC, and the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for it to consider that argument. The trial court once again granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Landowners, concluding that SSBC's as -applied challenge was "unavailing in light of the fact that [SSBC] had not commenced the non -conforming use of its property for a decade after the enactment of the 1993 [O]rdinance." SSBC again appealed, arguing that Section 6.1.4 was unconstitu- tional as applied to SSBC. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court reversed. Agreeing with SSBC, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that Sec- tion 6.1.4 of the Ordinance, which required exercise of any vested rights for non -conforming uses within on year of the Ordinance adop- tion, was unconstitutional as applied to SSBC. In so holding, the court explained that the Georgia Constitution "prohibits a legislative exercise of the police power that results in the passage of retrospective laws which injuriously affect the `vested rights' of citizens." (See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Paragraph X.) That "prohibition against retroactive impairment of vested rights extends to the enactment of zoning regulations, which is an exercise of police powers," said the court. The court further explained that a law would be "unconstitutional in operating retrospectively" if it "takes 2017 Thomson Reuters 9