Cobb County v. Wilson, S89A0164
| Decision Date | 30 November 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. S89A0164,S89A0164 |
| Citation | 386 S.E.2d 128,259 Ga. 685 |
| Parties | COBB COUNTY et al. v. WILSON et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Robert F. Webb, Kris Skaar, Webb & Kicklighter, Marietta, for Cobb County et al.
John H. Moore, Eldon L. Basham, Moore and Rogers, Marietta, for Wilson, et al.
The appellants, Cobb County and the Cobb County Board of Commissioners (Cobb County), were ordered by the trial court to rezone certain property owned by the appellees, Raymond B. Wilson et al. The appellees filed a contempt petition alleging that Cobb County had failed to rezone the property within the time specified in the order. The trial court agreed and declared the property to be "unzoned and free from all Cobb County Zoning restrictions." We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On May 27, 1987, the trial court held that the R-20 zoning classification of the property was unconstitutional and void. The trial court ordered Cobb County to rezone the property to a constitutional classification within 30 days. We affirmed the decision without opinion pursuant to Rule 59 in Cobb County v. Wilson, 258 Ga. XXIX, 365 S.E.2d 447 (1988). The remittitur was entered on April 5, 1988; during April 1988, Cobb County considered rezoning the property; on June 1, 1988, the appellees filed the contempt petition; and on January 18, 1989, the trial court found that Cobb County had failed and refused to use its zoning authority to rezone the property to a constitutional classification. The court, relying on City of Atlanta v. McLennan, 237 Ga. 25, 226 S.E.2d 732 (1976), declared the property "unzoned and free from all Cobb County Zoning restrictions."
1. Cobb County insists that the trial court erred in its finding that the property had not been rezoned. The applicable legal precept is Ga.L.1982, pp. 4111, 4112, which provides in pertinent part:
[N]o official action on any zoning or rezoning proposal may be taken except in a meeting of the commission open to the public, and the chairman and all other members of the commission shall be required to vote on any such proposal, and the vote of the chairman and each member shall be duly recorded in the minutes of the meeting of the commission....
Our review of the official minutes of the meeting of the commission reveals that the minutes do not recite a successful motion to rezone the subject property, a recorded second, or, most importantly, a recorded vote. Because the votes of the chairman and all other members were not recorded in the official minutes, the trial court's finding is not clearly erroneous, and will not be disturbed.
2. With that holding we might conclude this case; however, there are interests beyond those represented by the parties to this appeal. There are interests that reside in the public. A total exemption from land use restrictions resulting from the declaration that the property is "unzoned and free from all Cobb County Zoning restrictions" is a perilous condition to inflict upon adjoining landowners; it might cause them severe inconvenience or irreparable harm. Our duty to the public requires a diligent search for safer alternatives.
a. One alternative might involve allowing the trial judge to determine an appropriate zoning classification. That, however, is impossible because the judicial system has no zoning powers....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee, S17A1140
...their regulations to the law. See Town of Tyrone v. Tyrone, LLC, 275 Ga. 383, 384, 565 S.E.2d 806 (2002) (citing Cobb Cty. v. Wilson, 259 Ga. 685, 686, 386 S.E.2d 128 (1989) ). But we have identified no zoning case where the party claiming inverse condemnation received a "takings" remedy, t......
-
City of Atlanta v. J.A. Jones Const. Co.
...personal liability upon public officials for certain contract bidding irregularities, see OCGA § 50-5-79. See also Cobb County v. Wilson, 259 Ga. 685, 386 S.E.2d 128 (1989) concerning equitable relief:[I]f the zoning authority refuses to comply with [the trial court's] order to rezone, then......
-
Hall v. Nelson
...not to prematurely grant mandamus where the adequate remedy at law of contempt still existed. See, e.g., Cobb County v. Wilson, 259 Ga. 685( 2)(b), 386 S.E.2d 128 (1989). Because the granting of mandamus here was erroneous, I must ...
-
Town of Tyrone v. TYRONE, LLC, S02A0484.
...part. All the Justices concur. 1.Hall Paving Co. v. Hall County, 237 Ga. 14, 15, 226 S.E.2d 728 (1976); see also Cobb Cty. v. Wilson, 259 Ga. 685, 686, 386 S.E.2d 128 (1989). 2. Hall Paving, 237 Ga. at 15, 226 S.E.2d 728. 3. See generally Barrett v. Hamby, 235 Ga. 262, 265-66, 219 S.E.2d 39......