Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/08/2005

Home

goB. July 10, 2005 -- Page 3 yard, he applied to the Board of Adjustment of the City of Piney Point V'tllage for a variance from the side-yard requirements. The board denied the variance. Although the form on which the board recorded its decision had a space for the board to state its reasons, the board, left it blank. Solar sued, and the court ruled in his favor. The board appealed, arguing Solar did not have an unnecessary hardship and variances were only justifiable if the zoning ordinance did not permit any reasonable use of the property. - DECISION:Affirmed. Solar was entitled to a variance.- Solar was entitled to use his property to the fullest as it related to a family dwelling and place for family recreation, limited only'by the provisions of valid statutes and ordinances. Under the board's interpretation, it never would have to grant a residential variance for any purpose so 10ng as the property owner was able to construct or maintain some sort of minimally habitable residence. The board did not have to grant every variance to build a swimming pool. However, as in this case, when there was no evidence of any harm to any interest, and the undisputed evidence showed failure to grant the request would deprive the property owner of the ability to swim on his property, it was an abuse of discretion to deny the variance. see also: Sixth RMA Partners L.P. v. Sibley, 111 & W. 3d 46 (2003). see also: South Padre Island v. Cantu, 52 & W. 3d 287 (2001). Adult Entertainment-- Code definition based on business purpose Adult business claims code illegally vague Citation: 105 Floyd Road Inc. v. CriSp County, Supreme Court of Georgia, No. S05A0373 (2005) GEORGIA (05/23/05) -- 105 Floyd Road Inc. sold sexually explicit materials and novelty items as well as other adult-themed but non-sexually explicit materials. Under the county development code, sexually oriented adult uses needed a special permit to operate. The county development code def'med sexually ori- ented adult uses based solely on an establishment's substantial business pur- pose. The phrase was not del'mod further in the development code. The county's definition did not look to stock in trade, gross sales, floor space, or any other readily quantifiable standard. The county sued Floyd Road, arguing it could not continue operating with- out a permit. The court ruled in favor of the county. Floyd Road appealed, arguing the development code's del'tuition of what was covered by the code was too vague to be enforceable. DECISION: Reversed. © 2005 Ouinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 213