Court Opinion

ID: 9538966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:44:41.397944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:21.228974
License: Public Domain

BRYSON, J.,
specially concurring.
The basic facts in this case exemplify the prohibitive cost and extended uncertainty to a homeowner when a governmental body decides to change or modify a zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan affecting such owner’s real property.
This controversy has proceeded through the following steps:
1. The respondent opposed the zone change before the Washington County Planning Department and Planning Commission.
2. The County Commission, after a hearing, allowed the change.
3. The trial court reversed (disallowed the change).
4. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
5. We ordered reargument and additional briefs.
6. This court affirmed.
*590The principal respondent in this case, Fasano, happens to be an attorney at law, and his residence is near the proposed mobile home park of the petitioner A.G.S. No average homeowner or small business enterprise can afford a judicial process such as described above nor can a judicial system cope with or endure such a process in achieving justice. The number of such controversies is ascending.
In this case the majority opinion, in which I concur, adopts some sound rules to enable county and municipal planning commissions and governing bodies, as well as trial courts, to reach finality in decision.. However, the procedure is no panacea and it is still burdensome.
It is solely within the domain of the legislative branch of government to devise a new and simplified statutory procedure to expedite finality of decision.