Opinion ID: 55984
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: “Existing” use

Text: Next, we address whether Augusta Video had an “existing” use at the time that the Summer 2002 Amendments occurred. In Georgia, “mere preliminary work not of a substantial nature does not constitute a nonconforming use; neither does a use which is merely contemplated for the future but unrealized as of the effective date of the regulation.” Bickerstaff Clay Prods., Co. v. Harris County, Ga., 89 F.3d 1481, 1487 (11th Cir. 1996) (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing Rainwater v. Coweta County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 181 S.E.2d 540, 541 (Ga. Ct. App. 1971)). In this case, although Augusta Video never actually opened for business under the original ordinance, its use was more than merely contemplated. Its owners took substantial steps in furtherance of opening for business. It obtained a the special exception requirement itself was invalid, we need not consider the absence of time limits. 10 Business Tax Certificate and applied for a zoning exception as required by the Adult Entertainment Ordinance. Other than the failure to obtain a special exception, Augusta Video was located in a fully conforming site. The only thing preventing Augusta Video from actually opening was the County Commission’s denial of its special exception. Because the special exception requirement was unconstitutional and therefore invalid, we cannot say that Augusta Video’s use as an adult book store was non-existent under the original ordinance. The County Commission “cannot deny or postpone requested authorization to use land for a permitted use and then defeat the applicant’s right by thereafter rezoning the land.” Inner Visions, 400 S.E.2d at 916. The fact that the zoning ordinance was amended prior to Augusta Video actually opening does not render its use nonexistent.6