Opinion ID: 55984
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of original ordinance

Text: Augusta Video’s claim for nonconforming-use status turns on whether or not the original ordinance, under which it initially sought to open, is unconstitutional. In granting Augusta Video’s first motion for preliminary injunction, the district court held that the special exception requirement ran afoul of the First Amendment because it granted the County Commission the discretion to deny a special 8 exception even though the applicant satisfied the objective criteria of the ordinance.4 We agree that the special exception requirement was unconstitutional. “An ordinance that gives public officials the power to decide whether to permit expressive activity must contain precise and objective criteria on which they must make their decisions; an ordinance that gives too much discretion to public officials is invalid.” Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville, 176 F.3d 1358, 1361 (11th Cir. 1999). Because the original ordinance in this case provided that officials “may” grant a special exception if certain requirements were met, the County Commission had too much discretion, rendering that portion of the ordinance invalid. See id.; Redner v. Dean, 29 F.3d 1495, 1500–01 (11th Cir. 1994) (holding that provision stating that applicant “may” open adult business after certain period if board had not reached decision violated First Amendment). We also agree with the district court that the section granting the Commission discretion to deny the special exception if minors frequent the area was too imprecise to pass constitutional muster, while the other setback requirements were constitutional. See Lady J., 176 F.3d at 1362.5 4 We recognize that a grant of a preliminary injunction is not the same as an adjudication on the merits. However, we do not rely on the fact that the district court granted a preliminary injunction. Rather, we simply agree with the district court’s reasoning in concluding that the original zoning ordinance was unconstitutional. 5 The district court also held that the ordinance’s failure to require a deadline for a decision on the special exception rendered it unconstitutional. However, because we find that 9 Because the special exception requirement was invalid, and because Augusta Video met all of the other requirements of the B-2 zoning district, it was entitled to have its use as an adult business authorized by the County Commission. See Inner Visions, Ltd., v. City of Smyrna, 400 S.E.2d 915, 916 (Ga. 1991) (“[W]hen land is zoned for a particular use, and an applicant properly applies for authorization to use the land for that particular use, he is entitled to have such authorization issued.”).