Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/05/2006

Home

Page 4 - August 25, 2006 Z.B. / t. In classical aggrievement, a party had to demonstrate: 1) a personal and legal . interest iri a zoning agency's decision, and 2) that the agency's decision had injuriously affected that personal and legal interest. Statutory aggrievement was granted by the legislature so that certain parties could challenge a decision of an administrative body. On appeal, Moutinho andJ.R.R.C. claimed that a licensee or lessee of prop- erty could be classically aggrieved and that J.R.R.C. was both statutorily and classically aggrieved. As such, both parties were entitled to relief. . In applying the aggrievement requirements to the facts of the case with regard to Moutinho, the court found that there was ample case law to support Moutinho's claim. The court ruled that, although the oral agreement was not enforceable, it did establish a link between Moutinho and the property suffi- cient to grant him standing to appeal. The appeals court noted that: "An agreement between a landowner and a nonowner developer need not be in writing to establish the developer's aggrievement in zoning appeal." Where evidence showed that an oral agree- ment and intent of the parties to abide by that agreement existed, a substantial andJegitimate interest in the property also existed. The commission argued that J.R.R.C. could not appeal the commission's decision because it was not a party to the original application. However, by l'..~_':__'.. statute, an aggrieved party may take part in an appeal proceeding. Since the trial court had found that J.R.R.C. was an aggrieved party, it should have al- 10wedJ.R.R.C.'s claim to proceed. Nuisance - Neighbor claims waste-transfer facility attracted rodents, devalued properly County argues waste transfer allowable use in district Citation: Stanfieldv. Glynn County, Supreme Court of Georgia, Nos. S06A0452, S06X0453 (2006) GEORGIA (06/12/06) - Waste Management of Georgia Inc. operated a waste- transfer facility on a parcel of property in Glynn County. The property was located in a General Industrial (GI) zoning district. Waste Management oper- ated the facility under building permits issued from 1992 through 1997. Stanfield owned and lived on property adjacent to Waste Management's facility. Stanfield sued Waste Management for damages arising out of nui- sance, trespass, and inverse condemnation claims. Stanfield also sued the county, the board of commissioners, each commissioner individually, and the county building officer (collectively, the county) for damages arising out,of nuis~nce, trespass, and inverse condemnation claims. ' The county and Waste Management asked the court to find in their favor without a trial. The court ruled that the actions of the county did not rise to the i level of inverse condemnation, or an illegal taking, of Stanfield's property, be- 72 @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. J=or more information please call (617) 542-0048.