Board of Com'rs of Hall County v. Skelton

• Court: Georgia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GREGORY
• Citation: Board of Com'rs of Hall County v. Skelton, 286 S.E.2d 729, 248 Ga. 855 (Ga. 1982)
• Decision Date: 03 February 1982
• Docket Number: No. 37988,37988
• Parties: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HALL COUNTY v. W. A. SKELTON.

Page 729

286 S.E.2d 729

248 Ga. 855

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF HALL COUNTY v. W. A. SKELTON.

No. 37988.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Feb. 3, 1982.

Julius M. Hulsey, Richard W. Story, Kenyon, Hulsey & Oliver, Gainesville, for Board of Com'rs of Hall County.

Jack C. Bell, James M. Walters, Gainesville, for W. A. Skelton.

GREGORY, Justice.

This is a zoning case. Skelton owns a tract of land in Hall County presently zoned "Highway Business." The Board of Commissioners of Hall County denied his request to rezone the property to Agricultural-Residential III so that he could use his property as a site for three mobile homes, and he appealed to the Superior Court, which found the zoning classification of Skelton's property to be unconstitutional. The court ordered the Board of Commissioners to rezone the property from Highway Business to Agricultural-Residential III in a constitutional manner. The court gave the Board 30 days to do so, reserving jurisdiction to declare the property free from all restrictions if the rezoning is not done within a reasonable time. The Board appeals.

(1) This court set out the following general lines of inquiry for determining the validity of a zoning ordinance in Guhl v. Holcomb Bridge Road, 238 Ga. 322, 323-24, 232 S.E.2d 830 (1977): "(1) existing uses and zoning of nearby property; (2) the extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions; (3) the extent to which the destruction of property values of the plaintiffs promotes the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public; (4) the relative gain to the public, as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner; (5) the suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes; and (6) the length of time the property has been vacant as zoned, considered in the context of land development in the area in the vicinity of the property."

Using these lines of inquiry as a starting point, the individual's right to the unfettered use of his property must be balanced against the police power under which the zoning is done. The zoning classification must bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morality or general welfare or it will be set aside as arbitrary or unreasonable. The zoning classification may be set aside "... if [it] results in relatively little gain or benefit to the public while inflicting serious injury or loss on the owner..." Barrett v. Hamby, 235 Ga. 262, 266, 219 S.E.2d 399 (1975). It is not necessary that the property be totally useless for its zoned purposes, the regulation may be struck down if the "... damage to the owner is significant and is not justified by the benefit to the public." Barrett v. Hamby, supra, at 266, 219 S.E.2d 399.

Following the guidelines of Guhl, supra, the trial court made these relevant findings of fact: (1) nearby property--lots adjacent to appellee's property and lots directly across the highway from his property--is zoned Agricultural-Business III, and much of that property is used for residential purposes and as sites for mobile homes; (2) many of the nearby properties which are zoned for Highway Business have residences and mobile homes on them as preexisting uses; (3) while appelle...