Pruitt v. Meeks
| Decision Date | 10 September 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 25907,25907 |
| Citation | 177 S.E.2d 41,226 Ga. 661 |
| Parties | W. R. PRUITT, Chairman et al. v. Mack L. MEEKS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The court erred in granting the appellee's petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the governing authority of Gwinnett County to issue the conditional use permit applied for by the appellee, since the action of the authority was not unreasonable, capricious or arbitrary and hence not an abuse of the discretion vested in it by law.
This case involves the appeal by the Board of Commissioners of Gwinnett County and the intervenors, duly made parties by order of the trial judge, from the judgment of Gwinnett Superior Court granting the appellee's petition for a writ of mandamus directing the commissioners to issue a conditional use permit to the appellee, Mack L. Meeks.
The appellee filed an application to the Gwinnett County Planning and Zoning Commission for a use permit to operate a trailer court, or park, R-16. Since the property involved was zoned and designated by the county as 'RA-200' and since a mobile home park, or trailer park, is a conditional use and a 'RA-200' Zone the application was approved by the planning and zoning commission. The intervenors filed an appeal to the county board of commissioners and after a hearing the action of the planning and zoning commission was disapproved by the county commissioners. Whereupon, the appellee filed a petition for a writ of mandamus against the commissioners to compel the issuance to him of a conditional use permit as approved by the planning and zoning commission.
G. Hughel Harrison, James W. Garner, Lawrenceville, for appellants.
Webb & Fowler, Jones Webb, Stark & Stark, Homer M. Stark, Lawrenceville, for appellees.
1. The ordinance in question provides that the governing authority may grant or deny the application for a conditional use permit. On its face the decision of this court in Hyman v. Pruitt, 226 Ga. 625, 176 S.E.2d 707, may be construed to mean that the governing authority of Gwinnett County had an unbridled discretion to grant or deny an application for such a permit and that its decision was therefore not reviewable here. In view of the cases hereinafter cited, it is so plain that in such cases where ordinances prevent property owners from using their property as they choose, the test of the validity of the ordinance and action thereunder is whether the action of the governing authority is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable in the exercise of its discretion, and is reviewable as to such question. The trial court in that case affirmed the refusal to grant the permit because as a matter of law the applicant had failed to follow the ordinance and show that he had complied with its requirements, which was true under the evidence. The decision of this court in that case should be construed to mean that the discretion of the governing authority was not abused.
2. The governing authority in this case did not abuse its discretion in denying the application for the conditional use permit for the reasons given by it and the court erred in granting the petition for a writ of mandamus requiring the issuance of the permit. This is true for the reasons stated later, as given by the governing body. The planning commission and governing body are not required to issue a permit merely because a detailed application is filed. The governing body has elected, granting or denying applications for conditional uses, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Cumming v. Flowers
..."[t]he city does not argue that the [special use permit] decision of the city council was a judicial decision"); Pruitt v. Meeks , 226 Ga. 661, 662, 177 S.E.2d 41 (1970) (conditional use permit). In other cases, the Court specifically held that certiorari was not a permissible means of appe......
-
Soloski v. Adams
...whether defendants' actions should be overturned through mandamus as "arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable." Pruitt v. Meeks, 226 Ga. 661, 177 S.E.2d 41, 43 (1970). One such example of a gross abuse of discretion occurs where there has been "[a] clear error in judgment or the application......
-
City of Smyrna v. Parks
...clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. Gorieb v. Fox, 274 U.S. 603, 47 S.Ct. 675, 71 L.Ed. 1228, 53 A.L.R. 1210 (1927); Pruitt v. Meeks, 226 Ga. 661, 177 S.E.2d 41 (1970); Morgan v. Cherokee Hills etc. Co., 226 Ga. 60, 172 S.E.2d 669 (1970); Humthlett v. Reeves, 212 Ga. 8, 90 S.E.2d 14 (1955);......
-
City of Atlanta v. Wansley Moving & Storage Co., 35744
...the discretion of the governmental body in reviewing the application. Manning v. A.A.B. Corp., supra (shopping center); Pruitt v. Meeks, 226 Ga. 661, 177 S.E.2d 41 (1970) (trailer park); Gifford-Hill & Co. v. Harrison, supra (crushed-stone plant); Jackson v. Abercrombie, 229 Ga. 775, 194 S.......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law
...245 Ga. at 795, 267 S.E.2d at 235 (holding that a special use permit decision was a judicial decision); and then citing Pruitt v. Meeks, 226 Ga. 661, 662, 177 S.E.2d 41, 43 (1970) (holding the same for a conditional use permit)).68. Id. (citing Int'l Funeral Servs., Inc. v. Dekalb Cty., 244......