Arras v. Herrin
| Decision Date | 01 October 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 42357,42357 |
| Parties | ARRAS v. HERRIN, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Charles C. Smith, Jr., St. Marys, for Milton J. Arras.
J. Grover Henderson, St. Marys, for E.B. Herrin, et al.
Arras appeals a decision of Camden Superior Court denying a writ of mandamus to compel the Camden County Board of Commissioners to issue an alcoholic beverages license. We reverse.
The issue in this case is whether Arras was denied due process of law when the Board of Commissioners refused to grant his application for an alcoholic beverages license on the basis that the location of his proposed business was not proper.
Arras had applied for a beer and wine license to allow sales at a convenience store he planned to open in Camden County. The site of the proposed store was at the intersection of U.S. Highway 17 and Billyville Road, in an area zoned for commercial use. Billyville Road is approximately two miles long. There is a church about one mile from the proposed convenience store, and two other churches along Billyville Road. Also, school buses stop near the proposed location to unload students involved in athletics and extra-curricular activities.
Testimony at trial revealed that the Board of Commissioners had never before denied an application for a similar license to a convenience store owner or operator. In fact, the Board had earlier granted Arras' application for a license at another convenience store he owned in another part of Camden County. At a required hearing for Arras' application, no objection was raised directly by any member of the public. However, upon a motion by Commissioner Herrin, the application was denied. At the later trial, Herrin testified that numerous citizens had contacted him prior to the hearing to object to granting the license.
The standards for issuance of alcoholic beverages licenses are laid out in section 11-102 of the Camden County beer, wine and liquor ordinance. Among the requirements are that the location for the establishment be in a commercial or restricted industrial zone; that the establishment not be within 100 yards of a church, school, funeral chapel, cemetary or park; that the establishment be no closer than one-half mile from an existing licensed establishment; that the number of licenses issued by the county be limited to one for each 1,000 persons residing in the unincorporated portions of the county; and that the applicant be of good moral character. Applications must include sketches or diagrams of the location of the establishment and its distance from all churches, schools and existing licensed establishments.
The commissioners do not argue that Arras failed to meet any of the foregoing prescribed requirements for a beer and wine license. Instead they based the denial on section 11-102(7) of the ordinance, which provides: "The Board shall have full and sole authority, in its absolute discretion, to determine whether the applicant for a license under the provisions of this ordinance is a fit and proper person to operate the type of business involved ... and whether the location of such business...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ga. Dep't of Cmty. Health v. Northside Hosp., Inc.
...providing any notice to applicants of the criteria for the issuance of permits were too vague to be enforced); Arras v. Herrin, 255 Ga. 11, 12, 334 S.E.2d 677 (1985) (county ordinance setting forth Board of Commissioners' absolute discretion to grant beer and wine license was unconstitution......
-
Clayton Cnty. v. New Image Towing & Recovery, Inc.
...guidelines set forth in the Ordinance governing her discretion to do so. In support of this argument, New Image cites to Arras v. Herrin , 255 Ga. 11, 334 S.E.2d 677 (1985). We are not persuaded.In Arras , a convenience store owner brought a constitutional challenge against a county ordinan......
-
GEORGIA DOT v. Peach Hill Properties, S04A0204.
...develop ascertainable standards to gauge whether landfill operators qualify for an exemption request. See generally Arras v. Herrin, 255 Ga. 11, 12, 334 S.E.2d 677 (1985). "[T]he state agency's exercise of discretion under § 503(d)(1) ... is not unprincipled; it is clear that the touchstone......
-
Folsom v. City of Jasper
...not at issue, challenge to ordinance on grounds of vagueness can only be made as applied). 21. OCGA § 3-3-2(b). 22. Arras v. Herrin, 255 Ga. 11, 12, 334 S.E.2d 677 (1985) (quoting Levendis v. Cobb County, 242 Ga. 592, 250 S.E.2d 460 23. 252 Ga. at 77, 311 S.E.2d 174. 24. Arras, 255 Ga. at 1......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law
...2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 438 at *14 n.3.138. Id. at 809-10, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 438 at *8-9.139. Id. at 811, 2019 Ga. App. LEXIS 438 at *14.140. 255 Ga. 11, 334 S.E.2d 677 (1985).141. Arras, 255 Ga. at 11, 334 S.E.2d at 678.142. Id. at 11-12, 334 S.E.2d at 678.143. Id. (quoting Section 11-102(7)......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...254. 269 Ga. at 825, 504 S.E.2d at 696 (quoting Augusta-Richmond County Code Sec. 6-264 & 65). The court distinguished Arras v. Herrin, 255 Ga. 11, 334 S.E.2d 677 (1985). 269 Ga. at 825, 504 S.E.2d at 696. 255. 269 Ga. at 825, 504 S.E.2d at 696. "We hold that the . . . ordinance provides an......
-
Hb 338 - Turnaround Elligible Schools
...standards by which to control such discretion or provide notice to applicants of the requirements to obtain permits); Arras v. Herrin, 255 Ga. 11, 12, 334 S.E.2d 677, 678-79 (1985) (holding unconstitutionally vague a county ordinance that afforded county commissioners "absolute discretion" ......
-
Georgia Local Government Law: a Reflection on Thirty Surveys - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...Cobb County v. Wilson, 259 Ga. 685, 386 S.E.2d 128 (1989). 29. Id. 30. Id. 31. 376 U.S. 254 (1964). 32. Id. at 279-80. 33. Arras v. Herrin, 255 Ga. 11, 334 S.E.2d 677 (1985). 34. Gregory v. Chalker, 116 Ga. App. 126, 156 S.E.2d 390 (1967). 35. Frier v. City of Douglas, 233 Ga. 775, 213 S.E.......