Court Opinion

ID: 9684713
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:09:09.521877+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:55.144072
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice, dissenting. If the appellant had been denying the applications for permits simply on the basis that the property owners had not complied with Bulletin No. 9, I would agree. The proof however shows that appellant’s chief engineer is denying the applications upon some sort of criteria that are not in print. This alone is sufficient to show that the Commission was arbitrary. In addition to the criteria not in print, the proof shows that the applications were made in September, hearings were not held until December and a ruling was not made until the following April. This time element alone is so cumbersome that it becomes arbitrary and capricious. New people can wait nine months to find out whether they have a job under today’s cost of living scale. Furthermore the undisputed proof in the record is that other houses in the same subdivision are properly operating, pollution free, on septic tanks. For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.