Court Opinion

ID: 9580149
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:02:20.692303+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:04.187401
License: Public Domain

Hall, Justice,
concurring specially.
Though I concur in the result and general reasoning of the majority opinion, I want to set out my understanding of how this newest addition to our recent *715zoning decisions fits into the total fabric which the court has woven.
The question for a citizen confronting the zoning power is how to put together an evidentiary case to take advantage of recent rulings giving him a day in court.
As an initial matter, I conclude that the "principal land” and "neighboring land” (for want of better terms) are protected by the same standard. In fact, I conclude that the undoubted dearth of authority on this point, in cases and treatises alike, stems from the fact that the sameness of the standard for the principal and the neighboring landowners is assumed without discussion.
Our state’s legislative grant of zoning power to local governing authorities expresses delicate zoning considerations which appear to mix the interests of the principal land and the neighboring land into the same formula: "[S]uch [zoning] regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration... of the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and with a view to promoting desirable living conditions and the sustained stability of neighborhoods, [and] protecting property against blight and depreciation____” Code Ann. § 69-1207. (Emphasis supplied.) Therefore, whether one attacks an Act of the zoning authority affecting his own land or that of another, the test is the same: absent fraud or corruption, the question is whether there has been a manifest abuse of the rezoning power. The next question is how this may be shown.
In Barrett v. Hamby, 235 Ga. 262 (219 SE2d 399) (1975) the board’s evidence supporting its refusal to rezone the land in question was so minimal as to amount to no evidence. Barrett thus shows that evidence by a property owner can carry the day where the board practically defaults. The question is what the property owner must do where there is evidence by the governing authority. Guhl v. Holcomb Bridge Road Corp., 238 Ga. 322 (232 SE2d 830) (1977) describes the property owner’s burden and tells how much he must show to win: he must overcome the presumption of zoning validity by "clear and convincing evidence.” Id. at 323. In order to find out what kind of evidence can be clear and convincing he should be guided by the applicable statutes, principally Code § *71669-1207 quoted above. The elements enumerated in that statute for consideration are relevant in making out his case.
Treatises on zoning also provide helpful evidentiary pointers: "The basic rule ... [is that] if a change of zone is reasonable and is in accordance with the comprehensive plan of the zoning ordinance and can be justified as contributing to the public health, safety and general welfare, it will not be held invalid as 'spot zoning,’ even though the reclassification affects only a single piece of property or may incidentally discriminate in favor of the owner thereof.” 1 Rathkopf, the Law of Zoning and Planning, p. 26-14 (1974) (footnotes omitted). "The uniform rule as set out in all of the cases is that consistency between the treatment accorded the parcel rezoned and the scheme of zoning set out in the general or comprehensive plan is the essential test.” Id. at p. 26-5.
If the action of the governing authority does not meet the test of the statute and the test capsuled by Rathkopf, then in my opinion that action is a manifest abuse of power within the meaning of the majority opinion.
The neighbors’ evidence in the instant case was inadequate to make this showing and I agree that no manifest abuse of the zoning power has been shown here.