East Lands, Inc. v. Floyd County
Decision Date | 26 November 1979 |
Docket Number | No. 35178,35178 |
Citation | 244 Ga. 761,262 S.E.2d 51 |
Parties | EAST LANDS, INC. v. FLOYD COUNTY et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Wright, Walther & Morgan, Robert G. Walther, Rome, for appellant.
Frank H. Jones, Ronald G. Shedd, Rome, for appellees.
The plaintiff, East Lands, Inc., attacks as unconstitutional a zoning ordinance of the Floyd County Board of Commissioners. This zoning ordinance prohibits the plaintiff's optionee from constructing an apartment complex on a tract of land in unincorporated Floyd County. The superior court upheld the validity of the board's zoning decision. The plaintiff appeals.
In 1972, East Lands purchased for $350,000 approximately 120 acres of land in Floyd County. East Lands formulated a plan to develop this tract of land for single family, residential, condominium, apartment, and commercial uses. East Lands has expended approximately $180,000 for engineering, grading, paving, landscaping, and for installing storm drains, gutters, and curbs. In February of 1978, East Lands granted John Laing America, Inc., an option to purchase a 15-acre tract of this property, conditional on John Laing's being able to erect an apartment complex on the property. John Laing has expended approximately $31,000 in developing the property. However, Laing has done nothing to alter the land itself; nor has Laing made application for a building permit. 1
This 15-acre tract lies in Land Lot 328, 23rd Dist., 3rd Section, which is in the unincorporated area of Floyd County. In October of 1978, various owners of property in the vicinity of the proposed apartment complex site petitioned the board of commissioners to zone Land Lot 328, 23rd Dist., 3rd Section so as to prohibit construction of the apartment complex. The matter was referred to the Rome-Floyd County Planning Commission, and the planning commission recommended that the zoning request be denied. However, the board of commissioners voted to grant the zoning request. The board voted to zone Land Lot 328, 23rd Dist., 3rd Section "R-A" (low density residential). Held : We reverse.
The board of commissioners' decision to zone this tract of land was arbitrary and discriminatory and for these reasons invalid. " " Tuggle v. Manning, 224 Ga. 29, 32, 159 S.E.2d 703, 705 (1968); Hopping v. Cobb County Fair Assn., 222 Ga. 704, 705, 152 S.E.2d 356 (1966). Only two percent of the unincorporated area of Floyd County is under any kind of zoning restrictions whatsoever. There is evidence that the board of commissioners takes action to zone property in this area only when someone files a zoning petition. By statute, where cities and counties engage in the exercise of their zoning powers, the zoning must be done "in accordance with a comprehensive plan." Code Ann. § 69-1207. 2 The zoning in this case, which is akin to spot zoning, 3 violates this statute.
The appellees argue, however, that Code Ann. § 69-1208 (Ga.L.1957, pp. 420, 426) gives counties and municipalities the power to "spot zone." In pertinent part Code Ann. § 69-1208 provides, "Whenever the municipal planning commission, the county planning commission, or the municipal-county planning commission makes and certifies to its governing authority or authorities a zoning plan, including both the full text of the recommended zoning ordinance or resolution or both and the maps, for the entire area of the municipality or for the entire unincorporated area of the county or for any militia district or land lot . . . , Then the governing authority of the municipality or county may exercise the powers granted to them in section 69-1207 and, for the purposes therein mentioned, may divide the municipality or county or above specified portions of county into districts of such number, shape, and size as it may determine . . ." (Emphasis supplied.) We find this statute to be inapplicable in this case for two reasons.
First, the Rome-Floyd County Planning Commission did not make and certify to the Floyd County Board of Commissioners a plan to zone Land Lot 328, 23rd District, 3rd Section, low density residential. Toomey v. Norwood Realty Co., 211 Ga. 814, 816, 89 S.E.2d 265, 267 (1955).
Second, the enactment of a zoning plan for a single land lot under Code Ann. § 69-1208 must be in accordance with a comprehensive plan under Code Ann. § 69-1207 and must be designed to promote health and the general welfare, which is also required by § 69-1207.
It is uniformly recognized in other jurisdictions that the touchstone for determining whether the zoning of a given piece of property in a manner different than the property surrounding it constitutes illegal spot zoning, is whether such zoning is arbitrary or whether it is done in accordance with a comprehensive plan. "The term 'spot zoning' is used by the courts to describe a zoning amendment which is invalid because it is not in accordance with a comprehensive or well-considered plan." 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning 2d, 286 § 5.08 (1976). "The uniform rule as set out in all of the cases is that consistency between the treatment accorded the parcel rezoned and the scheme of zoning set out in the general or comprehensive plan is the essential test." 2 Rathkopf, The Law of Zoning and Planning, 26-5 § 26.03 (4th Ed.). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. 3M
...Griffith , 215 Ga. 811, 114 S.E.2d 29, 34 (1960) (citations omitted), overruled in part on other grounds by E. Lands, Inc. v. Floyd Cnty. , 244 Ga. 761, 262 S.E.2d 51 (Ga. 1979) and Cross v. Hall Cnty. , 238 Ga. 709, 235 S.E.2d 379 (1977). Georgia law further recognizes that a defendant who......
-
Massey v. Butts County
...overruled on other grounds in Vulcan Materials Co. v. Griffith, 215 Ga. 811, 815, 114 S.E.2d 29 (1960), and East Lands, Inc. v. Floyd County, 244 Ga. 761, 764, 262 S.E.2d 51 (1979), wherein this Court held that a property owner residing in a part of a municipality in which there was a zonin......
-
Williams v. City of Social Circle
...S.E.2d 163 (1996); Snow v. Johnston, 197 Ga. 146, 155(4), 28 S.E.2d 270 (1943) (overruled on other grounds); East Lands, Inc. v. Floyd County, 244 Ga. 761, 765, 262 S.E.2d 51 (1979); Nathan v. Oakland Park Supermarket, 123 Ga.App. 591, 181 S.E.2d 868 Keeping in mind that the city was not un......
-
Johnson v. Glenn, s. 36792
...the plaintiffs argue that the rezoning of this tract constitutes illegal "spot zoning." See generally East Lands, Inc. v. Floyd County, 244 Ga. 761, 262 S.E.2d 51 (1979). Second, they argue that the rezoning is conditioned on an agreement by the rezoning applicants to dedicate 6.3 acres of ......