Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Page 4- September 10, 2005 z.g. Ordinance -- Distance exceptionpro~ded for liquor 'locations' City at~ues 'location' means the buiMing itself, not the entire property Citation: Northside Corporation v. Ci~ of Atlanta, Court of Appeals of Geotjia, 2nd Div., No. AOSA]092 (2005) GEORGL& (07/26/05) -- Since 1976, Northside Corporation had lawfully owned and operated the Tower Package Store. In 2003, Northside applied to the city for a building permit to add floor space to the back of the store. The director for the Atlanta Bureau of Buildings denied the application. Under the zoning code, no package store could be within 600 feet of a residen- tial use, and Northside was within this prohibited distance. However, there was an exception in the code for "locations" licensed to sell alcohol since 1997, as long as that "location" did not expand or enlarge. The city believed "location" referred to the building itself, while Northside believed it referred to its entire parcel of land, which would not expand with the addition. Northside sued, and the court ruled in favor of the city. Northside appealed, arguing the zoning ordinance had to be read strictly in its favor. · DECISION: Reverse& Strictly construed in favor of Northside, the plain language showed the legislative intent that the term "location," as used in the exception to the dis- tance requixement, referred to the entire site occupied by the store; not simply to the building, on that site. Zoning ordinances had to be construed strictly in favor of the property owner and never extended beyond their plain and exphcit terms. The code, in providing that'package stores could not be located within 600 feet of residences and other specified uses, plainly stated that the distance was to be "measured in a straight line from the closest point of the property line of the site proposed to be occupied by the package store to the closest property line of any identified above." Clearly, the regulation measured the particular distance from the location of the property, not the building within it. Thus, Northside's proposal would not . expand or enlarge its "location." see also: Cherokee County v. Martin, 559 S.E. 2d 138 (2002). see also: DeKalb County v. Post Apartment Homes, 506 S.E. 2d 899 (1998). VISIT. OURWEBSITE at www. quinlan, om 206 © 2005 Ouinlan Puoiisnin9 Group. Any reproduction :,s prohibited. For more informmion piease call {617) 542-0048.