Stone Mountain Industries, Inc. v. Wilhite
| Decision Date | 09 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 23032,23032 |
| Citation | 144 S.E.2d 357,221 Ga. 269 |
| Parties | STONE MOUNTAIN INDUSTRIES, INC. v. R. E. WILHITE, Jr., et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
A property owner has no vested right in a provision of a zoning ordinance that allows a new application to rezone after the expiration of 12 months from a denial of his application, but he can avail himself of the privilege thereof while it remains in the ordinance. When the ordinance is amended to fix the waiting time at 18 months instead of 12, all owners must conform to the amendment, and it was unlawful to approve a new application after 12 months but in less than 18 months subsequent to the amendment to the ordinance.
Certain citizens, taxpayers and property owners in DeKalb County brought this action for equitable relief and for declaratory judgment against another property owner and the governing authorities of DeKalb County alleging that the defendant property owner had had his property illegally rezoned without full compliance with the zoning ordinance by applying for rezoning in less than 18 months since a previous application by his predecessor in title, the zoning ordinance or regulation having been changed before the application to require a waiting period of 18 months between applications instead of 12 months. The prayers were that the defendants be restrained and enjoined from accepting or issuing building permits or using the property or constructing buildings in conformity with the alleged rezoning, and for such other and further relief as the court might deem proper.
By agreement of counsel the lower court heard the case without the intervention of a jury and upon an agreed stipulation of facts which state that the predecessor in title to the defendant property owner had applied for rezoning prior to the zoning amendment changing the waiting period from 12 to 18 months, and that the present owner made application in more than 12 months after the previous application but in less than 18 months as now required by the ordinance. The ordinance reads that no rezoning application will be allowed filed by an owner, his authorized agent or subsequent title holder more often then every 18 months. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs enjoining the defendants as prayed and that the amendment changing the waiting period was not a retroactive application of the zoning ordinance. The exception is to this judgment.
Young & Thomason, Hardaway Young, III, Decatur, for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
George v. Town of Edenton
...215 Md. at 141, 137 A.2d at 159. Accord, DeLatour v. Morrison, 213 La. 292, 34 So.2d 783 (1948); compare Stone Mountain Industries v. Wilhite, 221 Ga. 269, 144 S.E.2d 357 (1965); Cosmopolitan Nat'l. Bank v. City of Chicago, 27 Ill.2d 578, 190 N.E.2d 352 (1963); Arkenberg v. City of Topeka, ......
-
Recycle & Recover, Inc. v. Georgia Bd. of Natural Resources
...applicant seeking to alter the use of his property confers no vested rights upon all property owners. See Stone Mountain Indus., Inc. v. Wilhite, 221 Ga. 269, 144 S.E.2d 357 (1965). However, a property owner "can avail himself of the privilege thereof while it remains in the [statute]." Sto......
- Smith v. Francis, s. 23030
-
McLennan v. Clarke, 27922
...the third application was properly held to be an invalid ordinance because of this procedural defect. See Stone Mountain Industries, Inc. v. Wilhite, 221 Ga. 269, 144 S.E.2d 357 (1965), and Newman v. Smith, 217 Ga. 465, 123 S.E.2d 305 Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. ...