Brown v. Dougherty Co., 39128
| Decision Date | 09 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 39128,39128 |
| Citation | 300 S.E.2d 509,250 Ga. 658 |
| Parties | BROWN v. DOUGHERTY CO. et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
John H. Hayes, Donald D. Rentz, Geer & Rentz, Albany, for A.L. brown.
Nathan C. Davis, Albany, for Dougherty County, Ga., et al.
In this zoning dispute, Brown appeals from the Dougherty County Board of Commissioners' denial of his request to rezone a tract of land located in southern Dougherty County. The superior court affirmed the denial of Brown's rezoning request. We reverse.
The subject land consists of approximately ninety rural acres located at the southeast corner of Lonesome Road and Vanderbilt Drive. To the east and south of the tract is farmland. To the west and north are single-family residences. At present ten acres of Brown's tract is zoned R-1B (single-family residential); the remainder is zoned AG (agricultural). Brown applied for rezoning of the entire tract to R-4B (single-family mobile home subdivision) so that he could sell it for development as a mobile home community. Pursuant to the county's three-tier method for evaluating zoning requests, Brown's application was evaluated by the Albany Metropolitan Planning Commission, whose staff recommended approval. The Metropolitan Planning Commission's report assessed the proposed development's impact in regard to change in population density, contrast in structural character of the neighborhood (i.e., site-built versus mobile homes), drainage, access, and traffic flow. After public hearings, the Dougherty County Planning Commission recommended that the rezoning request be denied.
The Dougherty County Board of Commissioners conducted further public hearings and voted to deny Brown's application. Brown then brought the present action in superior court, seeking a judgment declaring the board's refusal to rezone to be an unconstitutional taking of his property. At trial Brown introduced evidence, including extensive expert testimony, showing that the land is not suited to agricultural use; that he has been unable to sell the land for residential use as presently zoned; that the best and most profitable use of the land is as a mobile home subdivision; that the proposed subdivision would cause no serious drainage, water supply, or traffic problems; and that the increase in population density caused by the mobile home development would not be high compared to the county in general, would be buffered from the existing neighborhood, and would be confined to a small area. In response, the board chose not to introduce expert testimony, instead relying on depositions of the county commissioners as well as testimony of two residents of the affected area. This testimony was generally to the effect that the proposed mobile home subdivision might cause drainage and traffic problems, would greatly increase the population density of the area, and would destroy the rural character of the existing neighborhood.
Decisions of local zoning authorities are presumed valid. This presumption may be overcome by presenting clear and convincing evidence that the existing zoning is significantly detrimental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 1
...in aesthetics, standing alone, is often too vague to offset substantial injury to a landowner in a rezoning case. Brown v. Dougherty, 250 Ga. 658, 300 S.E.2d 509 (1983). See also City of Austin v. Teague, 570 S.W.2d 389 (Texas 1978). The evidence does not support nor did the trial judge fin......
-
Waffle House v. DeKalb County, S91A0142
...the existing zoning as reasonably related to the public interest. Gradous, supra [256 Ga.] at 471 ; see also Brown v. Dougherty County, 250 Ga. 658 (300 SE2d 509) (1983); Flournoy v. City of Brunswick, 248 Ga. 573 (285 SE2d 16) (1981); DeKalb County v. Flynn, 243 Ga. 679 (256 SE2d 362) Brow......
-
Gwinnett County v. Davis
...and "that it is not economically feasible to develop the property under its current classification"); Brown v. Dougherty Co., 250 Ga. 658, 659, 300 S.E.2d 509 (1983) (evidence "showing that the land is not suited to agricultural use" and that owner "has been unable to sell the land for resi......
-
Town of Tyrone v. TYRONE, LLC, S02A0484.
...6. Wilson, 259 Ga. at 686, 386 S.E.2d 128. 7. DeKalb Cty. v. Dobson, 267 Ga. 624, 625, 482 S.E.2d 239 (1997); Brown v. Dougherty Cty., 250 Ga. 658, 659, 300 S.E.2d 509 (1983). 8. Holy Cross Lutheran Church v. Clayton Cty., 257 Ga. 21, 23, 354 S.E.2d 151 (1987). 9. City of Atlanta v. TAP Ass......