Subscribe Now!
 
 
Land Use Law Report
0 item
Read an issue—It's FREE!
Your name
Email ID
6 Compelling Reasons to Subscribe to Land Use Law Alert

Regular readers use Land Use Law Alert to:

  1. Sharpen general land use law knowledge
  2. Uncover past cases relevant to a current dispute
  3. Save time gathering the right evidence to support a case
  4. Incorporate real-world examples into employee training
  5. Apply specific precedent language during litigation
  6. Boost professional development and widen staff's legal perspective
Adobe PDF IconAdobe Acrobat Reader(required to view PDFs)
 
Prev: Takings / Undesirable Land Use: Repetitive Complaint Precludes Federal Suit Challenging City's Nuisance Abatement
 
Next: Environmental: Generous Statute Of Limitations Applies To CERCLA-Type State Claims Only


Zoning / Undesirable Land Use: Landfill Prohibition Use Was Retroactive, Thus Unconstitutional

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

A landowner convinced the Supreme Court of Georgia that a county zoning ordinance stripping it of a vested right to develop a landfill on its property was retroactive and thus unconstitutional as applied.

Facts: In 1989, Southern States-Bartow County, Inc. (Southern States) applied to develop and operate a landfill on its property in Bartow County, Georgia. A few years earlier, Southern States' predecessor in interest acquired a certificate of zoning compliance from the County. The certificate indicated that a landfill was a permissible use under the zoning scheme.

In 1990, Southern States asked for another compliance certificate as a required component of its landfill development application. The County denied the request because the zoning ordinance didn't allow a landfill on the site. Southern States then sued the County. While that suit was pending, the Supreme Court of Georgia declared the County's zoning ordinance invalid because it hadn't been adopted according to the required statutory procedures.

In 1993, the County enacted a new zoning ordinance with the provision at issue in this case. That provision stated that any ''lawful use of or vested right'' to use property that was in place when the ordinance was adopted could continue, even if the use didn't conform to the 1993 zoning ordinance. However, this nonconforming use provision had an exception: For a vested right in a nonconforming use to be protected by it, a landowner had to ''actually commence[]'' the use within one year of the new ordinance'[...]

Next: Environmental: Generous Statute Of Limitations Applies To CERCLA-Type State Claims Only
 
Prev: Takings / Undesirable Land Use: Repetitive Complaint Precludes Federal Suit Challenging City's Nuisance Abatement
 
Browse Archives:
2017 | 2016 | 2015 | 2014 | 2013 | 2012 | 2011 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2007 | 2006 |