Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/03/1997

Home

Page 4 - May 10, 1997 Z.B. the town. Gasoline filling stations were defined as being either a principal or an accessory use. So if a filling station was prohibited in the TVC district, it did not matter whether it was an accessory use. see also: C.N Brown Co., Inc. v. Town of Kennebunk, 644 A.2d 1050. see also: Singal v. City of Bangor, 440 A.2d 1048. Nonconforming Use - Company says county violated its right to operate quarry DeKalb Stone Inc. v. County of DeKalb, Ga., Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, No. 95-9578 (Georgia) 1997 Since the turn of the century, DeKalb Stone Inc. and its predecessors operated a rock quarry on property in DeKalb County, Ga. During that period, the land underwent a number of zoning changes and eventually was zoned single-family residential. In 1989, DeKalb Stone applied for a business license to operate the quarry. The county denied the license, saying DeKalb Stone didn't provide enough evidence to show the quarry was a legal nonconforming use. DeKalb Stone appealed to the Board of Zoning Appeals, which concluded the quarry was a legal nonconforming use. The county didn't appeal the decision. After receiving the board's decision, DeKalb Stone invested in equipment and construction, and began to blast and crush rock for its quarry operation. Soon after, residents complained to the county about the blasting. The county told DeKalb Stone it had to stop work until it got a development permit, and said the blasting and crushing exceeded the scope of the nonconforming use. When the county and DeKalb Stone negotiated over a development permit, DeKalb Stone agreed to buy 70 acres around the quarry to act as a buffer zone. The county apparently changed its position, and notified DeKalb Stone it was committing zoning violations. The county said DeKalb Stone, by purchasing the 70 acres, was illegally expanding the nonconforming use. The county later ordered the company to stop work in the quarry. Though DeKalb Stone never intended to quarry the buffer-zone property, the court said the purchase was an illegal expansion of the nonconforming use and fined DeKalb Stone $1,000. Soon after the decision, the county denied DeKalb Stone's request for a development permit. DeKalb Stone asked a higher court to review the decision. However, it eventually dropped the state' case and filed a federal lawsuit against the county. DeKalb Stone asked the court to allow it to continue its crushing and blasting operations, and for a temporary court ,order to keep the county from enforcing the zoning laws. It argued the county's enforcement of its zoning laws was an arbitrary and capricious violation of its 14th Amendment due process rights. The court denied DeKalb Stone's request for a temporary order. According 'to the court, DeKalb Stone's property rights were state-created, and therefore were not protected by the federal Constitution. DeKalb Stone appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Al5