Opinion ID: 55984
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: “Lawful” use

Text: Furthermore, because Augusta Video’s use conformed to the Zoning Ordinance in every way except for the special exception requirement, its use was lawful as required for grandfathering purposes. 6 The district court held that Augusta Video’s right to operate at its current location is not vested because it failed to apply for a business license. First, because Augusta Video’s use is covered by the grandfather clause in the City’s ordinance, we need not address the requirements of Georgia’s common law vesting principle. Moreover, Augusta Video’s status as an existing nonconforming use does not depend on whether or not it failed to apply for a business license. The denial of the special exception requirement rendered application for a business license utterly futile. “[T]he law does not require the performance of vain or useless things.” Alliance Metals, Inc. v. Hinely Indus., Inc., 222 F.3d 895, 905 (11th Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Tendler v. Thompson, 352 S.E.2d 388 (Ga. 1987). 11 A landowner's right to use his property in a particular manner is determined by the legal state of facts which exist at the time a use is commenced. If at that time, by reason of either the nonexistence of a restrictive ordinance or the existence of an ordinance which if inquiry were made would be determined to be invalid, it is found that the landowner had the right to operate the particular use and that the municipality would have no right to stop him from doing so, then, the landowner's rights to use his land in the particular manner so initiated are vested. 4 Rathkopf’s The Law of Zoning and Planning § 72:18 (4th ed.) (emphasis added). Because we find that the portion of the ordinance requiring a special exception was invalid, Augusta Video’s use as an adult business in the zone in which it was located is lawful. Accordingly, we find that Augusta Video’s right to use the land in this particular manner is a lawful nonconforming use. That is, its use as an adult business is grandfathered into the B-2 zone. However, this does not mean that Augusta Video may immediately open its doors; it means only that it is properly zoned to operate an adult business in the B- 2 zone. Augusta Video must still comply with the remaining valid requirements of Augusta’s original Zoning Ordinance, including the setback requirements. It must also obtain a Business Tax Certificate and an adult entertainment establishment permit under the current Adult Entertainment Ordinance. See Inner Vision, 400 S.E.2d at 916 (“[A]n applicant must thereafter comply with all reasonable conditions and requirements imposed upon the use of the land, and if he fails to do 12 so the governing authority can withold building permits and occupancy permits to enforce compliance with these regulations and conditions subsequent . . . .”); see also Gold Rush II v. City of Marietta, 482 S.E.2d 347 (Ga. 1997) (finding no vested right in issuance of annual adult entertainment license). B. Current Zoning and Adult Entertainment Ordinances Augusta Video also challenges the constitutionality of the current Zoning and Adult Entertainment Ordinances. Because we find that Augusta Video’s use is grandfathered into the B-2 zone, we need not consider its argument that the Zoning Ordinance fails to provide reasonable alternative avenues of communication by limiting the sites available for adult businesses to the LI and HI zones. That issue is moot. Augusta Video may rely on its grandfather status for the use of its land as an adult business at its building in the B-2 zone. Accordingly, Augusta Video is exempt from the requirement in the current Adult Entertainment Ordinance that requires applicants to prove that they are located in the LI or HI zones. However, the remaining requirements remain in full effect. We find no merit in Augusta Video’s other grounds for challenging the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. Augusta Video argues that the current ordinance’s requirement that applicants “advertise” in the legal gazette is a prior restraint on expression that does not comport with the First Amendment. The 13 ordinance requires “all new permit applications [to] advertise three times in the legal gazette before applications are heard by the Commission.” Adult Entertainment Ordinance § 6-1-11. Augusta Video argues that this requirement is constitutionally flawed because it places discretion in the hands of a private newspaper to prevent an applicant from being approved for a licensing permit. It argues that this is a problem for two reasons. First, the ordinance places no time limits on when the newspaper must run the advertisement and no repercussions if the newspaper fails to run the advertisement in a timely manner. Second, Augusta Video argues that this requirement amounts to a “heckler’s veto” in that it places in the hands of a private citizen—the newspaper—the discretion not to run the advertisement and thus to prevent the applicant from obtaining a business license. Augusta Video’s argument is founded on the concern that the newspaper will refuse to run the required advertisements—a concern that is misplaced. The legal organ of a county runs public notices, or advertisements, as a matter of course. Further, the legal organ of a county does not have unfettered power because its status as a legal organ may be changed upon a majority vote of the judge of probate court, the sheriff , and the clerk of superior court. See O.C.G.A § 9-13-142. Thus, there is a statuary check on the legal organ and it runs the risk of losing its status if it does not publish legal notices. Also, the ordinance itself 14 provides that the City will “place the appropriate advertisement on behalf of the applicant” if the applicant has any problems securing the required advertising. Adult Entertainment Ordinance § 6-1-11. Further, the advertising requirement is a reasonable means of ensuring that the public and potential neighbors know about the impending arrival of an adult business. See T.K.’s Video, Inc. v. Denton County, Tex., 24 F.3d 705, 710 (5th Cir. 1994). “Notice to others of pending zoning regulation is supported by a substantial state interest, serving the practical role of allowing effected persons an opportunity to examine the request and test its accuracy.” Id.