Court Opinion

ID: 9623286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 06:30:51.294001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:05:27.945210
License: Public Domain

Hunstein, Justice,
concurring specially.
While I do not agree with the majority that the mere filing of an application for a permit by RRI gave it a “vested right” that would bar retroactive application of the amendment to OCGA § 12-8-24 (e) *256(1), I concur in the majority’s result because my review of the record shows that RRI had a “vested right” due to RRI’s substantial expenditures in reliance upon the permit.1 See Banks County v. Chambers of Ga., 264 Ga. 421, 427 (444 SE2d 783) (1994) (Hunstein, J., dissenting). I agree with the majority that our holding that RRI has a “vested right” does not constitute a ruling whether RRI has complied with all the legal requirements for a permit so as to entitle it to issuance thereof.

 Given the history to the amendment to OCGA § 12-8-24 (e) (1), this case is factually distinguishable from Banks County v. Chambers of Ga., 264 Ga. 421 (444 SE2d 783) (1994), wherein the landowner engaged in a “ ‘race of diligence’ ” to file its application before a pending zoning change was enacted. Id. at 426 (Hunstein, J., dissenting).