Hyman v. Pruitt, 25864
| Decision Date | 09 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25864,25864 |
| Parties | Irwin Barry HYMAN et al. v. W. R. PRUITT, Chairman, et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Kaler, Karesh, Rubin & Frankel, Martin H. Rubin, Atlanta, for appellant.
Stark & Stark, Homer M. Stark, Lawrenceville, for appellee.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Irwin Barry Hyman and 10 others filed a complaint in the Superior Court of Gwinnett County against W. R. Pruitt, Chairman of the Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners, and the other members of the commission, as the governing authority of Gwinnett County, and against Gwinnett County, Georgia. The complaint sought to have declared illegal the action of the defendants in denying a conditional use permit for a mobile home park, to have a mandamus absolute against the defendants requiring the issuance of said conditional use permit, and that Paragraph 55 of Article III of 'The Zoning Resolution of Gwinnett County, Georgia' be declared illegal and unconstitutional. Held:
1. The Zoning Resolution for the Unincorporated Areas of Gwinnett County, Georgia provides: Article XXI, D, 2. The appellant contends that the word 'filed' in this provision means the filing in writing of such an appeal within ten days. The minutes of the county commissioners show that J. R. Purdy came before the commission within 10 days of the granting of the use permit and requested the appeal. The board unanimously agreed to grant the appeal apparently without a formal filing thereof. A full hearing was later conducted and the appellants presented their plans to the board. The appellants did not object to the informal procedure of the commissioners in granting the appeal. Without deciding that an appeal is required to be in writing, we hold that the appellants waived any objection they might have had to the manner of 'filing' of the appeal by not raising such objection before the county commissioners. Compare Lapham v. Roulan, 10 Misc.2d 152, 169 N.Y.S.2d 346. 'Generally, questions or objections which were not raised or urged in the original proceedings for review of a decision or order of a zoning official or board will not be considered on further review.' 101 C.J.S. Zoning § 379, p. 1227.
2. The Zoning Resolution for the Unincorporated Areas of Gwinnett County, Georgia provides: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fairfax MK, Inc. v. City of Clarkston
...it before the City Council. See Trend Dev. Corp. v. Douglas County, 259 Ga. 425, 427(2), 383 S.E.2d 123 (1989); Hyman v. Pruitt, 226 Ga. 625-626(1), 176 S.E.2d 707 (1970); Soerries v. City of Columbus, 222 Ga.App. 745, 746, 476 S.E.2d 64 (1996) (failure to raise statutory issues before the ......
-
City of Atlanta v. Wansley Moving & Storage Co., 35744
...set out these conditions in the ordinance and leave issuance of the permit to the discretion of the governmental body. Hyman v. Pruitt, 226 Ga. 625, 176 S.E.2d 707 (1970). 1 Judicial review of the denial of conditional use permits has traditionally been by way of mandamus, regardless of whe......
-
Swafford v. Dade County Bd. of Com'rs
...for review of a decision or order of a zoning official or board will not be considered on further review.' [Cit.]" Hyman v. Pruitt, 226 Ga. 625(1), 176 S.E.2d 707 (1970). 5. Swafford contends here as he did in superior court that the notice he received was inadequate to inform him of the na......
-
Jackson v. Abercrombie
...permit a use permit to be withheld based upon the discretion of the authorities. Unlike the zoning ordinance dealt with in Hyman v. Pruitt, 226 Ga. 625, 176 S.E.2d 707, where no standards were set forth for conditional uses in the ordinance, here the ordinance set forth the standards to be ......