Bulloch Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Williams
| Decision Date | 10 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. A15A0459.,A15A0459. |
| Citation | 773 S.E.2d 37,332 Ga.App. 815 |
| Parties | BULLOCH COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS v. WILLIAMS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Brown Rountree, Laura Harriman Wheaton, Statesboro, for Appellant.
Edenfield, Cox, Bruce & Classens, Michael J. Classens, Statesboro, R.H. Reeves III, Millen, for Appellee.
Taulbee, Rushing, Snipes, Marsh & Hodgin, Christopher R. Gohagan, amicus curiae.
In this discretionary appeal, the Bulloch County Board of Commissioners (“the Board”) appeals from a superior court order reversing its denial of a conditional use permit for a personal care home. In related enumerations of error, the Board contends that the trial court erred by failing to properly apply the “any evidence” standard of review to a local government body's zoning decision. For the reasons explained below, we agree and therefore reverse.
(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Jackson County v. Earth Resources, Inc., 280 Ga. 389, 391, 627 S.E.2d 569 (2006).
So viewed, the record shows that Kimberly Williams applied for a conditional use permit to operate a personal care home on 7.52 acres on Ponderosa Road in an Agricultural 5 acre (AG–5) zoning district. The Bulloch County Planning and Zoning Department conducted and completed a multi-point written assessment of seven conditional use standards. It recommended approval of the application with the following conditions: (1) approval of the personal care home by the State; (2) the personal care home must begin operation within six months of approval; and (3) the permit would be limited to Kimberly Williams. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended approval of the request by a vote of 3-1.
The written assessment included the following information: fire service would be available within 6.8 miles (response time 23 minutes); response time from the County Sheriff's Department is approximately 18 minutes, but depending on patrol patterns the “response time may be greater or lesser”; “the capacity and general condition of the roads accessing the proposed development is good [and] Ponderosa Road is a county maintained dirt road”; minimal impact on the existing school; approval “should not create a significant traffic impact”; street providing access to proposed use is adequate; access into and out of the property is adequate for traffic and pedestrian safety, the anticipated volume of traffic, and access by emergency vehicles; hours and manner of operation would not have adverse effects on other properties in the area; no evidence that proposed change in use should injure or detract from existing neighborhoods; and that the proposed use would be appropriate for a rural open area.
In a meeting before the Board, it was presented with the written departmental review recommending approval with the above-stated conditions. Additionally, both Williams and her attorney spoke on behalf of her application, while an attorney representing adjoining landowners spoke against the application.
Williams advised the Board “that the personal care home would have to meet all the local and state requirements and also it would be governed by the Department of Community Affairs”; that “by state law they can only have up to six (6) patients in the home and that none of the patients would have any type of dementia or Alzheimer disease
”; and that “there should not be any safety issues” because “they will have supervision twenty-four (24) hours per day and seven (7) days per week.”
An attorney representing 11 adjacent landowners stated that several reasons supported a denial of the application, including: (1) the personal care home could only be reached by traveling down an unpaved “washboard dirt road, especially during inclement weather”; (2) “the driveway is narrow and hard to find”; (3) the distance from the home to the nearest hospitals was over 18 miles; and (4) an adjacent property owner was concerned about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
York v. Athens Coll. of Ministry, Inc.
...capacity to determine the facts and apply the law." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bulloch County Bd. of Commrs. v. Williams , 332 Ga. App. 815, 817, 773 S.E.2d 37 (2015). See also Moon v. Cobb County , 256 Ga. 539, 350 S.E.2d 461 (1986). In this case, the ordinance directed that due c......
-
Macon-Bibb Cnty. Planning & Zoning Comm'n v. Epic Midstream, LLC.
...is any evidence supporting the decision of the superior court." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Bulloch County Bd. of Commrs. v. Williams , 332 Ga. App. 815, 773 S.E.2d 37 (2015).So viewed, the record shows that Epic Midstream, LLC, a handler of petroleum fuels, acquired roughly 80 acre......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law
...at 726 (distinguishing City of Roswell and Jackson County as involving SUPs, not rezonings); Bulloch Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs v. Williams, 332 Ga. App. 815, 815, 773 S.E.2d 37, 38 (2015) (applying the "any evidence" standard to a SUP and relying on Jackson County).34. York, 348 Ga. App at 58-59,......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law
...(alteration in original) (quoting Jackson, 265 Ga. at 793, 432 S.E.2d at 361).104. Id.105. See supra text accompanying notes 21-22.106. 332 Ga. App. 815, 773 S.E.2d 37 (2015).107. Id. at 817, 773 S.E.2d at 39 (quoting Webb, 256 Ga. at 478 n.3, 350 S.E.2d at 460 n.3). 108. See Williams, 332 ......
-
Local Government Law
...331 Ga. App. 494, 771 S.E.2d 173 (2015).220. Burton, 297 Ga. at 546, 776 S.E.2d at 182.221. Id.222. Id. at 546, 776 S.E.2d at 182.223. 332 Ga. App. 815, 773 S.E.2d 37 (2015). 224. Id. at 815, 773 S.E.2d at 38.225. Id. at 817, 773 S.E.2d at 40.226. 297 Ga. 429, 774 S.E.2d 658 (2015).227. Id.......
-
Real Property
...632 (2005).410. Burton, 297 Ga. at 548, 776 S.E.2d at 183 (quoting 105 Floyd Road, 279 Ga. at 348, 613 S.E.2d at 634). 411. Id.412. 332 Ga. App. 815, 773 S.E.2d 37 (2015).413. Id. at 815, 773 S.E.2d at 38.414. Id.415. Id.416. Id.417. Id. 418. Id. at 816, 773 S.E.2d at 39.419. Id.420. Id.421......