Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/1997

Home

.- Z.B. June 10, 1997 - Page 3 However, the code explicitly granted local governments the power to regulate existing structures. Within that right, it could only be assumed that municipalities also had the authority to regulate new construction. If municipalities didn't have the power to regulate new construction, owners of nonconforming properties would have free reign to construct new buildings, while owners wanting to alter existing nonconforming structures would be prohibited from doing so. According to its own argument, the cemetery would be able to build a new mausoleum on its grounds without restriction, but would have to get a conditional-use permit to alter a mausoleum it already had. see also: TiconderogaFarms v. County of Loudoun, 409 S.E.2d 446 (1991). see also: City of Richmond v. Confrere Club of Richmond, 378 S.E.2d 471 (1990). Rezonlng - Owners claim residential zoning of land is 'unconstitutional' DeKalb County v. Dobson, 482 S.E.2d 239 (Georgia) 1997 Two property owners planned to sell their adjacent lots in a DeKalb County, Ga., residential zone. The prospective buyers agreed to buy the property on the condition that the area be rezoned as a modified residential district. In the residential district, lots were required to have a minimum area of 12,000 square feet, a minimum width of 85 feet and a minimum setback of 35 feet. If the area were rezoned, as the owners proposed, the minimum lot size would be reduced to 6,000 square feet, the minimum width would be 60 feet, and the minimum setback would be only 5 feet. Both zoning classifications limited structures to detached, single-family dwellings. The owners presented their request to the county planning commission, which approved the proposed rezoning, along with conditions. The county commission, however, rejected the owner's application. The owners sued the county. At trial, the court apparently heard evidence that the property would yield a profit under either zoning classification, but that the rezoned land would produce a larger profit. After reviewing the evidence, the court concluded the residential zoning classification was unconstitutional and ordered that the property be rezoned "in a constitutional manner." The court said the current classification would allow for nine lots, but if the area were rezoned, the maximum number of lots would increase to 17. Explaining that the current trend in residential development was toward "larger houses on smaller lots," the court said the modified classification would be more beneficial to the property owners. Not only would a rezoning be more beneficial, the court said, but the profits from having only nine lots (as allowed by the current classification) could not cover the costs of constructing them. In addition, the court said, a rezoning would boost property values in the entire area. The county appealed. DECISION: Reversed. To successfully challenge a governmental zoning decision, a property owner q7