Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2017

Home

Zoning Bulletin August 25, 2017 I Volume 11 I Issue 16 GEORGIA (06/19/17)—This case addressed the issue of whether a short-term tenant of real property has standing (i.e., the legal right) to challenge a zoning decision made at the request of the tenant's landlord. The Background/Facts: The Stuttering Foundation, Inc. (the "Foundation") was a tenant of office space in a commercial develop- ment in Glynn County (the "County") that was owned by Lucas Prop- erties Holdings III, LLC ("Lucas"). The Foundation's lease term was for five years. During the tenancy, Lucas sought to construct an addi- tion to the rear of one of the existing buildings in the development. In furtherance of that goal, Lucas filed with the County an application for rezoning of the property. Lucas also sought approval of a site plan for the proposed construction. In March 2016, both the rezoning request and the site plan were approved by the County. The Foundation was opposed to the new development. Among other things, the Foundation asserted that the property was subject to ease- ments and restrictive covenants, and that various details of the site plan would violate the terms of the easements and covenants. The Founda- tion alleged that those violations would diminish the value of its leasehold interest in the property. The County filed a motion to dismiss, asking the court to dismiss the Foundation's complaint. The trial court granted the County's motion to dismiss. The trial court found that the Foundation, as the tenant of the property, lacked standing to challenge a rezoning decision made at the request of the fee simple owner (i.e., the landlord/property owner). The Foundation appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Superior Court affirmed,in relevant part. The Supreme Court of Georgia held that the Foundation did not have standing to challenge the rezoning decision here. In so holding, the court explained that there is a two-step test for determining a party's standing to challenge a rezoning decision. Known as the "substantial interest -aggrieved citizen" test, the test is: (1) whether a person claiming to be aggrieved has a substantial interest in the zoning decision; and (2) whether that interest is in danger from "suffering some special damage or injury not common to all property owners similarly situated." An affiuruative answer to both parts of the test concludes that the party has standing to challenge the rezoning decision. Here, the court concluded that the Foundation's status as a short- term tenant did not confer upon it the necessary "substantial interest" in the zoning decision sufficient to create standing to challenge the zoning decision here. The court found that the lease between the Foundation and Lucas created a usufruct (i.e., a "license in real prop- © 2017 Thomson Reuters 3