Fayette County v. Seagraves, 35795

Citation245 Ga. 196,264 S.E.2d 13
Decision Date05 February 1980
Docket NumberNo. 35795,35795
PartiesFAYETTE COUNTY v. SEAGRAVES.
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

Glaze, McNally & Glaze, William R. McNally, Charles B. Graham, Jr., Jonesboro, for appellant.

Robert A. Blackwood, III, Peachtree City, for appellee.

MARSHALL, Justice.

In 1971, the appellant-plaintiff, Fayette County, enacted the Fayette County Zoning Ordinance, placing the property in the county under various zoning restrictions. Property owned by the appellee-defendant, Seagraves, was zoned Agricultural-Residential (A-R). The use of mobile homes is prohibited in such zoning districts. See Matthews v. Fayette County, 233 Ga. 220, 210 S.E.2d 758 (1974). The defendant had used two mobile homes on his property for many years prior to passage of the county zoning ordinance. Therefore, the defendant's mobile homes constituted legal, nonconforming uses. See Code Ann. § 69-1208 (Ga.L.1957, pp. 420, 426); Fayette County Zoning Ordinance, § 8-3. (Sections of the Fayette County Zoning Ordinance will be referred to hereafter by section number only.)

In 1978, one of the defendant's mobile homes was destroyed by fire. Although the Zoning Board of Appeals of Fayette County denied the defendant a permit, he put up another mobile home on his property. The county then brought this suit for an interlocutory and permanent injunction. The superior court denied both, and the county appeals.

Where a structure containing a nonconforming use has been "razed or damaged by fire, flood, wind or Act of God," county zoning ordinances permit such structure to be reconstructed "if the damage totals less than seventy-five percent (75%) of the value of the structure." § 8-5. The term "structure" is defined as, "(a)nything constructed or erected with a fixed location on or in the ground, or attached to something having a fixed location on the ground. Among other things, structures include buildings, mobile homes, signs, swimming pools, and fallout shelters, but does (sic) not include walls or fences." § 2-37. County zoning ordinances also define "mobile home" as, "a detached dwelling unit built upon a chassis and designed for transportation, after fabrication, not otherwise in compliance with the building code of Fayette County, on streets or highways on its own wheels, on a flatbed or other trailer and arriving at the site where it is to be occupied as a dwelling, complete and ready for occupancy except for minor and incidental unpacking operation, location on jacks or other temporary and/or permanent foundations, connection to utilities and the like." § 2-37.1.

At the hearing on the application for interlocutory injunction, the defendant testified that the mobile home had been destroyed by fire and that it had a value of approximately $400; however, a septic tank, well pump, and utility connections some of which were new have a value of approximately $700. These latter items were not destroyed by the fire.

After conducting a hearing on the county's petition for interlocutory injunction, the superior court ruled that the term "structure," as used in the county zoning ordinance, is broad enough to include not only the mobile home, but also the septic tank, well pump, and utility connections attached to the mobile home. Since, under the evidence submitted, the damage to the structure did not exceed 75% of its value, the superior court held that the defendant could continue to use the new mobile home on his property as a legal, nonconforming use. The superior court entered an order finding that the defendant had not violated the county zoning ordinance and denying the county's petition for a permanent injunction. Held :

1. We affirm the superior court's ruling that the language of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Evans Timber Co. v. Central of Ga. R. Co.
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 22 Junio 1999
    ...beyond plain and explicit terms. Duncan v. Entrekin, 211 Ga. 311, 312, 85 S.E.2d 771 (1955); see also Fayette County v. Seagraves, 245 Ga. 196, 197-198, 264 S.E.2d 13 (1980). Thus, preemption of the common law should not occur from such uncertain implications read into the The caption of GC......
  • Albany Urology Clinic, PC v. Cleveland
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 6 Marzo 2000
    ...Cir.1993). 11. Bo Fancy Productions v. Rabun County Bd. of Commrs., 267 Ga. 341, 343, 478 S.E.2d 373 (1996); Fayette County v. Seagraves, 245 Ga. 196, 197-198, 264 S.E.2d 13 (1980). 12. Simpson, 167 Ga.App. at 348, 306 S.E.2d 13. OCGA § 31-9-6.1(d). 14. It also bears noting that in creating......
  • DeKalb County v. Post Apartment Homes
    • United States
    • Georgia Court of Appeals
    • 16 Septiembre 1998
    ...their plain and explicit terms. [Cits.]" Duncan v. Entrekin, 211 Ga. 311, 312, 85 S.E.2d 771 (1955); accord Fayette County v. Seagraves, 245 Ga. 196, 197-198, 264 S.E.2d 13 (1980). Since the exercise of police power in regulating the use of land infringes upon the landowner's right to its u......
  • Bo Fancy Productions, Inc. v. Rabun County Bd. of Com'rs
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • 25 Noviembre 1996
    ...they must be strictly construed and never extended beyond their plain and explicit terms. [Cits.]" [Cits.] Fayette County v. Seagraves, 245 Ga. 196, 197-198(1), 264 S.E.2d 13 (1980). It follows that the trial court erred in concluding that the rally could not be held on "agricultural" prope......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Statutes in Derogation of the Common Law in the Georgia Supreme Court - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 53-1, September 2001
    • Invalid date
    ...Bank, 186 Ga. 619, 198 S.E. 666 (1938). 46. See, e.g., Duncan v. Entrekin, 211 Ga. 311, 85 S.E.2d 771 (1955); Fayette County v. Seagraves, 245 Ga. 196, 264 S.E.2d 13 (1980); Bo Fancy Prods., Inc. v. Rabun County Bd. of Comm'rs, 267 Ga. 341, 478 S.E.2d 373 (1996). 47. See, e.g., Mullis v. So......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT