Court Opinion

ID: 9598765
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:11:37.70723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:27.286494
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
dissenting.
I agree with the holdings in Divisions 1 and 2 of the majority opinion, wherein the remedies available to a property owner in a rezoning case are discussed generally. In Division 3, however, the majority turns to the specifics of the instant case and ultimately holds that the superior court’s order must be affirmed and remanded only for the limited purpose of “enabling] [that] court to vacate the two conditions banning variances.” While I agree that, as a matter of law, those two conditions must be vacated, I cannot agree to an affirmance and remand for that sole limited purpose. In my opinion, the case should be reversed in its entirety and remanded to the superior court for the additional purpose of determining whether the other ten conditions should also be vacated. Accordingly, I must dissent to the majority’s affirmance and limited remand of the instant case.
“Conditional zoning is rezoning subject to conditions which are not applicable to other land similarly zoned. [Cit.]” Cross v. Hall County, 238 Ga. 709, 713 (2) (235 SE2d 379) (1977). In determining that the specified conditions, which are not applicable to other land which is also zoned RM-HD, were nevertheless “valid and reasonable” conditions applicable to appellants’ property, the superior court found as follows:
[A]t the rezoning hearing, the Druid Hills Civic Association requested that these conditions be adopted out of concern that [appellants’] development of [their property] would negatively impact on the surrounding neighborhood. [Appellees] expressed the same concern and adopted the twelve conditions to ameliorate the possible negative impact. For these reasons, . . . the conditions imposed on the rezoning of [appellants’] property are valid and reasonable.
(Emphasis supplied.)
In my opinion, a superior court’s determination of the validity' and reasonableness of the various conditions imposed upon rezoned property cannot be based upon its blanket consideration of whether others have expressed a “concern” over the “possible” negative impact that rezoning might have on the surrounding neighborhood. Rather, such a determination can be based only upon the superior court’s consideration of whether there is sufficient evidence that the rezoning will negatively impact the neighborhood and that each of the specific conditions is necessary to ameliorate that negative impact. *367“Generally, such conditions will be upheld when they were imposed pursuant to the police power for the protection or benefit of neighbors to ameliorate the effects of the zoning change. [Cits.]” (Emphasis supplied.) Cross v. Hall County, supra at 713 (2). See also Warshaw v. City of Atlanta, 250 Ga. 535, 536 (299 SE2d 552) (1983), holding that certain conditions “were properly imposed to address legitimate neighborhood concerns about parking and late hours of operation.” (Emphasis supplied.)
That condition which restricts appellants’ development of their rezoned property to only 22 units per acre serves to illustrate what I perceive to be the error in the superior court’s disposition of the instant case. Under RM-HD zoning, as many as 30 units per acre would otherwise be permitted. It is understandable that appellants’ neighbors may have a “concern” that a development with as many as 30 units per acre would have a “possible” negative impact on the neighborhood. It is likewise understandable that appellants’ neighbors might be of the opinion that restricting development to no more than 22 units per acre would alleviate that “concern” and ameliorate any “possible” negative impact. What must equally be understood, however, is that appellants, as the owners of the property, also have a “concern” that a development with less than 30 units per acre will have a “possible” negative impact on their use of their property in full accordance with an otherwise unconditional RM-HD classification.
In addressing these countervailing “concerns” over the “possible” negative impact that might result from the greater or lesser density of a development on appellants’ property, “we start from the proposition that a property owner may use his property as he sees fit, subject to such rights as others, including governments, may have to control the owner’s use.” (Emphasis supplied.) Cross v. Hall County, supra at 711 (1). The “concern” of others over the “possible” negative impact resulting from a development with as many as 30 units per acre gives them no “right” to prevent appellants from developing their property in full accordance with an otherwise unconditional RM-HD rezoning classification. Any restriction on appellants’ use of their property as the site of a development with as many as 30 units per acre would have to be “sustainable under the police power.” Cross v. Hall County, supra at 713 (2), fn. 2.
“As the individual’s right to the unfettered use of his property confronts the police power under which zoning is done, the balance the law strikes is that a zoning classification may only be justified if it bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morality or general welfare. Lacking such justification, the zoning may be set aside as arbitrary or un*368reasonable. [Cit.]”
Decided June 27, 1994 —
Reconsideration denied July 14, 1994.
Peterson Dillard Young Self & Asselin, Dick Wilson, Jr., J. Stuart Teague, Jr., for appellants.
Patrick F. Henry, Jr., Jonathan A. Weintraub, Joan F. Roach, Joyce M. Averils, Huddleston & Medori, Kathryn M. Zickert, for appellees.
Cross v. Hall County, supra at 710 (1). Accordingly, in the absence of evidence of a “legitimate” concern that a development with as many as 30 units per acre would negatively impact the “public health, safety, morality or general welfare” and that restricting development to no more than 22 units per acre would be a necessary ameliorative measure to counteract such negative impact, imposition of that condition would not be “sustainable under the police power” and should be “set aside as arbitrary or unreasonable.” Cross v. Hall County, supra; Warshaw v. City of Atlanta, supra.
Appellees may have heard evidence which supported the imposition of the various conditions on appellants’ rezoned property as a valid and reasonable exercise of the police power. It does not appear, however, that the superior court undertook to determine whether such evidence was heard by appellees. The superior court appears to have automatically approved the various conditions solely because appellants’ neighbors had expressed some “concern” and had requested that those conditions be imposed and appellees had then expressed the same “concern” and had imposed the conditions ostensibly to ameliorate a “possible” negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Under Cross v. Hall County, supra, and Warshaw v. City of Atlanta, supra, I believe this to be erroneous. Pursuant to those decisions, the superior court was required to determine whether there was any evidentiary support for sustaining imposition of the conditions as the authorized exercise of the police power in amelioration of a legitimate concern that rezoning would have a negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Since the superior court appears to have failed to make this requisite determination, I would reverse and remand with direction that it now do so.