Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/2005

Home

Page 6 -- August 10, 2005 Z,B, lng the ".practical difficulty" standard in this situation was an abuse of discre- tion. Thus, if there was no unnecessary hardship present, the variance should not have been granted. Ultimately, the variance should only have been overturned if there was a showing of an arbitrary or capr/cious decision. see also: Henley v. City of Yot~ngstown Board of Zoning Appeals, 735 N.E. 2d 433 (2000). see also: Burkholder v. Twinsburg Township Board of Zoning, 70J N. E. 2d 766 (1997). Zoning Decision--Board 'grandfathers in' develoPer by letter Fails to go through normal channels for zoning amendment Citation: Buck~ier v. Douglas County, Court of Appeals of Georgia, ]st. Div., No. AOSA088! (2005) GEORGIA (06/20/05) -- Buckner was a real estate developer who wanted to build single-family homes on one-acre lots on a 68-acre tract located in Douglas County. Soon after entering into a purchase a~eement for the land, the county amended its zoning ordinance to require three-acre lots' on Buckner's property. Buckner contacted the planning and zoning dkector, who told him he would be ~andfathered in under the prior ordinance. After several meetings, the County / Board of Commissioners sent Buckner a letter assuring h/m he could develop his .land under the prior ordinance. Nonetheless, the board later informed Buckner he was not entitled to the necessary building permits because his one-acre lot plans violated the new zoning ordinance. Buckner sued the county, and the court ruled in the countY's favon Buckner appealed, arguing the board's letter gave him a vested right to develop the property under the prior zoning ordinance. DECISION:Affirmed. Because Buckner had not yet purchased the subject property or made sub- stantial expenditures in reliance on the probability of building permit issuance until after the county zoning ordinance had been amended, he did not acquke a vested right to develop the property in conformity with the prior zoning classification. The board's letter amounted to an agreement to amend the zoning ordi- nance to authorize Buckner to develop the property in conformity with the prior zoning classification on certain conditions. Even though it did not constitute a zoning ordinance amendment changing the text of the county zoning ordi- nance, it did constitute an amendment to the zoning ordinance rezoning the property from one classification to another. The grant of such a request, even if motivated by Buckner's claim of vested © 2005 Quinlan Publisi~ing Group, Any reproduction is prohibited, For more information p(ease cai((617) 542,0048, 68