City of Atlanta v. Starship Enterprises of Atlanta Inc., A10A1997.

• Decision Date: 24 March 2011
• Docket Number: No. A10A1997.,A10A1997.
• Citation: 308 Ga.App. 700,708 S.E.2d 538
• Parties: CITY OF ATLANTA et al.v.STARSHIP ENTERPRISES OF ATLANTA, INC.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

308 Ga.App. 700

708 S.E.2d 538

11 FCDR 327

CITY OF ATLANTA et al.

v.STARSHIP ENTERPRISES OF ATLANTA, INC.

No. A10A1997.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Feb. 16, 2011.Reconsideration Denied March 24, 2011.

Jeffrey S. Haymore, Lemuel Herbert Ward, Atlanta, for appellants.Begner & Begner, Alan I. Begner, Cory Goldsmith Begner, Meta T. Dama, Atlanta, for appellee.SMITH, Presiding Judge.

We granted a discretionary appeal in this case to the City of Atlanta (“the city”) and the City Board of Zoning Adjustment (“the board”) to review the trial court's order reversing the decision of the board and reinstating a building permit initially granted to Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. (“Starship”), but later revoked. The trial court incorrectly held that no evidence supported the board's finding of an intervening use that terminated the legal nonconforming use of the property at issue, and accordingly erred when it reinstated the building permit on that ground. We therefore reverse.

Starship sought to operate an adult business ¹ on premises formerly occupied by another adult business as a nonconforming or “grandfathered” use. The city first issued and then revoked a building permit, contending that under Atlanta Code of Ordinances § 16–24.005(4), the nonconforming use was superseded by a permitted use, a used furniture store, and could not be resumed. The board affirmed, and Starship appealed to the superior court, which found that the permit had been wrongfully revoked and ordered the city to reinstate it. This appeal followed.

1. The board first complains that the trial court applied the wrong standard of review, weighing the evidence instead of determining whether any evidence supported the board's decision. While it recited some of Starship's evidence at considerable length, the trial court expressly adopted the correct standard of review, observing, “[T]he ‘any evidence’ standard applies to this Court's review of the administrative decision of the City Board of Adjustment.” “[T]he sole function of the reviewing court was to determine (1) whether there was any evidence to support the findings of the [board] and (2) whether the [board] had abused its discretion. [Cit.]” City of Atlanta Bd. of Zoning Adjustment v. Kelly, 238 Ga.App. 799, 801(1), 520 S.E.2d 269 (1999).

2. The trial court erred, however, in its application of the standard, by incorrectly concluding that the board provided “no evidence at all” in support of its finding of an intervening use. Any evidence is sufficient to support the decision of the local governing body. See Fulton County v. Congregation of Anshei Chesed, 275 Ga. 856, 859–860(2), 572 S.E.2d 530 (2002); Emory Univ. v. Levitas, 260 Ga. 894, 897–898(1), 401 S.E.2d 691 (1991).

The evidence showed that the previous tenant had operated a lingerie modeling business at the location beginning in 1991. In 2007, the owner requested that the original business license be cancelled. Local residents testified that the lingerie modeling business ceased operations some time in the summer of 2007, and the signs advertising the business and the blinds covering the windows were removed. At the same time the residents observed new signs reading “USED FURNITURE,” including a large illuminated sign on a pole near the roadway. One local resident testified that he observed the “USED FURNITURE” signs for a period of at least six months, and “did see driving past what appeared to be commerce going on at that location.” He elaborated that...