*1 225 5, 1984. Jacobs, Burns, Sugarman Orlove, Hirshman, Linda R. Adair & Goldthwaite, Livingston, Donald R. for
Kutak, Huie, Huie, Rock & W. Stell Terrence Lee Law- Croft, rence L. Thompson, Dubose, appellee. Wilson Justice, concurring specially.
Gregory, I agree with the result in reached this case and with is said what (a) parts (b) in and argument of Division 3. an While can be made as (c) 3,1 in part out of Division believe it is not analysis. the correct agree cannot with suggestion the majority’s Jackson 1285, Transit Auth. v. Union, Local Div. Amalgamated Transit 457 639) 2202, U. S. (1982), 15 72 SC LE2d recognizes exception application (FAA) 2 of of the Federal Arbitration Act col- to § bargaining (c) lective agreements made under of the Urban Mass § (UMTA). Transportation Act of 1964 The Supreme simply Court pointed (c) out in history that case that of legislative indi- § cates Congressional intent collective-bargaining contracts be- tween UMTA recipients aid by and transit unions to be governed state law in state courts. did The court the appli- address (c) of cability of the FAA agreements. However, to UMTA S._ 1) Corp. 852, Southland v. 465 U. Keating, SC 79 LE2d Congress holds that intended of the Federal Arbitration Act to be used agreements enforce arbitration in cases litigated state courts governed by The state law.
Southland that the FAA policy reflects a broad national of by arbitration “unencumbered state law restraints.” 104 SC at 859. “purpose of Act was to assure those who desired arbitration and whose contracts related expec- to interstate commerce that their tations would not by be undermined federal or ... judges state legislatures.” courts or at quoting SC Metro Industrial Paint- ing (2nd 1961) Corp. Co., Terminal Constr. F2d Cir. (Lumbard, Chief Judge, concurring). al. v. AVANT et DOUGLAS COUNTY. Presiding Justice.
Marshall, Douglas County brought this en- Avants to join violating providing them from section single-family in R-2 goats hogs are “not to exceed a animal gross total one acre for a total of three tract(s).” prohibits pen This also or lot which the animals are than to a housed from located closer 200 feet property.
private adjoining residence on approxi- tract consists the Avants’ The evidence shows that tract acquisition acres, they began since mately property per one to 70 anywhere from they have raised year. requests county’s raised various defenses Avants have *2 is argue subject that the ordinance The Avants injunctive relief. in that it limits the arbitrary and unreasonable
unconstitutionally taking into tract without a total of three named animals to v. Hamby, Barrett See generally size of the tract. consideration the that, 399) (1975). contend The Avants also Ga. 262 SE2d operate next to them the large farm is allowed to that a cow district, a of uniform enforcement of zoning there has been lack same Fayette County, Ga. Matthews v. this ordinance. See 758) (1974) addition, raise In the Avants a de- SE2d and cits. nonconforming a use hog-farm operations that their constituted fense property, to their applicable time R-2 became zoning at the the until complained any zoning violations county that the has recently.1 is present the
Procedurally, the Avants contend that county (a),2 in has 9-2-5 the to dismissal under OCGA subject municipal previously proceedings against the Avants instituted court for violation of ordinance.3 defenses, all of Avants’ and fol- superior rejected court the temporary injunctive relief was entered
lowing a bench trial reasons, county. following the we appeal. of the The Avants For reverse. where, here, applicable a is zoning
We hold that as tracts, i.e., 21-acre it is unconsti- containing large, tutionally irrational the number ani- unreasonable and the size of the tract.4 taking mals tract without into consideration property use of con- “As the individual’s to the unfettered his done, police power zoning the which is the balance the fronts under may only if it justified law strikes that a classification be zoning county provision requiring in the there is nonconforming involving years buildings after no to be within two the zon uses discontinued ing becomes effective. (a) provides: plaintiff may prosecute two in the courts at OCGA 9-2-5 “No actions party. If such time for cause the same two actions the same the same of action simultaneously, may plaintiff require the the to elect which he will are commenced defendant times, prosecute. pendency If the two actions are commenced at different former such good shall be defense latter.” 15-10-61, municipal proceeding court has been removed to Pursuant OCGA the jury superior court as the demand for trial. a result of Avants’ Davis, 43) (1978), constitutionality Guhl held in the of a As Ga. 356 question jury. zoning question of not a of fact for the ordinance is a law for the bears a public health, substantial relation to safety, morality general welfare. such Lacking justification, zoning may be arbitrary aside as . v. Hamby, supra, or unreasonable . .” Barrett Ga. at 265.
Judgment concur, Hill, reversed. All the except J., Justices who dissents.
Hartley, Fowler, Joseph Fowler, Rowe H. Jr.,
W. O’Neal Dettmering, for appellee. Justice, Chief dissenting.
Hill, I would affirm the trial court and therefore must dissent. It county should be that a prohibit can all in an area zoned single- family residential and thus should be authorized to limit the number Moreover, to 3. testimony at the hearing temporary injunc- tion showed that at least recently, the Avants were averaging about hogs per year. This number 1 hog per violates the acre limit not held unconstitutional majority injunction and thus was authorized.
The trial court held that the ordinance “3 pigs eight or twenty-one acre tract a single-family residential [in ordinance,” (matter added) a reasonable in brackets zone] “that Douglas County has a duty to regulate land uses especially in view of the rapidly changing urban area contained within county.” uphold would validity this ordinance as to single-family residential zones and would hold trial court did not abuse its discretion its enjoining violation.
40884. LASSETER v. GEORGIA PUBLIC SERVICE
COMMISSION. AMERICAN CYANAMID GEORGIA PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION. Justice.
Clarke, Appellants, industrial customers and one individual customer Savannah (SEPCO), Electric Power Company challenge decisions (the “Commission”) Georgia Public Service Commission four related cases: (Docket 3361-U), The coal conversion case No. which involves (OCGA 46-2-26.3)
a statute directing the Commission under certain permit utility circumstances on an electric to recover an acceler- ated in converting generat- basis the cost incurred of its electric 25%