Laserfiche WebLink
April 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 8 Zoning Bulletin <br />away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws or creates a <br />new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new liability in re- <br />spect to transactions or considerations already past." <br />Here, the court noted, SSBC had acquired a vested right for a non- <br />conforming use of its County land in May 1989, and realized that right <br />in September 1994. The court also noted that Section 6.1.4, which was <br />enacted in 1993, applied to SSBC's previously -acquired vested right, <br />and that Section 6.1.4 acted "to divest [SSBC] of its vested right." <br />Based on those determinations, the court found its conclusion as to <br />constitutionality here was "inescapable": "Section 6.1.4, as applied in <br />this case, affects `rights which accrued before it became operative' and <br />`impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws or creates a new <br />obligation.' " Section 6.1.4 was "not a mere minimal condition on <br />[SSBC's] vested rights which is permitted under Georgia law," but <br />rather acted to eliminate a previously acquired vested right if the non- <br />conforming use was not commenced within one year "irrespective of <br />the intent of the vested right holder, any possible financial outlay, and, <br />relevant here, the feasibility of use within that time frame." (Here, <br />commencing use of the property as a landfill within the full year was <br />"simply unfeasible.") <br />In summary, the court held that Section 6.1.4 could not "merely be <br />read and applied prospectively," but rather, here, was "retrospective <br />and injuriously impaired] [SSBC's] vested right to develop its land <br />free from county use restriction." <br />See also: DeKalb DeKalb County v. State, 270 Ga. 776, 512 S.E.2d <br />284 (1999). <br />Power and AuthorityZoningboard <br />imposes condition on use of land, <br />saying use does not run with the <br />land and is allowed by current <br />landowners only <br />Neighboring landowner challenges use as illegal and contends zon- <br />ing board exceeded its authority with that condition <br />Citation: Preston v. Zoning Board of Review of Town of Hopkinton, <br />2017 WL 752600 (R.I. 2017) <br />RHODE ISLAND (02/27/17)—This case addressed the issue of <br />whether a zoning board could impose a condition on the use of land <br />dictating that the authorized use of the land did "not run with the land." <br />10 ©2017 Thomson Reuters <br />