Haralson County v. Taylor Junkyard of Bremen, Inc.
291 Ga. 321
| Ga. | 2012Background
- Taylor Junkyard sought to confirm a permitted nonconforming use before purchasing Haralson County property with a residential zone.
- At 1998 zoning enactment, the site was owned by Daniels, who operated a similar nonconforming auto-related business.
- In 2001, Trawick acquired the property and operated a similar business as nonconforming use.
- Taylor Junkyard obtained a Zoning Administrator letter stating the business fell under the grandfather clause and could remain if compliant.
- Taylor Junkyard applied for a 2009 business license; the County denied, claiming a change to metal recycling/ fabrication caused a zoning violation.
- Taylor Junkyard sought mandamus in superior court, which granted relief, prompting this discretionary appeal by Haralson County
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus was proper where an avenue of statutory appeal exists | Taylor Junkyard argues no statutory discretionary appeal exists | Haralson County argues for a statutory discretionary appeal route under the Zoning Ordinance | Mandamus proper; no statutory discretionary appeal existed |
| Whether the ZBA decision lacked any evidentiary support under the any-evidence standard | Taylor Junkyard maintained the use remained the same as in 1998 | County contends the use changed/discontinued; evidence supports reclassification | Writ affirmed; no evidence supported a discontinuance or change in nonconforming use |
| Whether the nonconforming use was re-established after discontinuance for one year | Taylor Junkyard contends there was no one-year discontinuance | County asserts discontinuance evidenced by missing licenses and corporate cessation | No evidence of discontinuance for at least one year; use continued |
| Whether Daniels’s letter indicates a different nonconforming use | Letter did not prove a new or different use; it targeted rezoning direction | Letter suggests limited scope, not complete description of all activities | Letter does not establish a different nonconforming use; evidence shows continuity of prior use |
Key Cases Cited
- Walton County v. Scenic Hills Estates, 261 Ga. 94 (1991) (constitutional limits on local appeals; no authority to create direct superior court review)
- Stendahl v. Cobb County, 284 Ga. 525 (2008) (no statutory mechanism for direct superior court appeal of zoning decisions)
- City of Atlanta v. Wansley Moving & Storage Co., 245 Ga. 794 (1980) (in absence of ordinance review mechanism, mandamus appropriate)
- DeKalb County v. Cooper Homes, 283 Ga. 111 (2008) (treatment of review remedy and certiorari constraints in zoning)
- DeKalb County v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 278 Ga. 501 (2004) (absence of statutory discretionary appeal; mandamus review proper)