In this case, the plaintiffs-appellants, who own property in the City of Smyrna, contend that the defendants-appellees, the aforementioned municipality and its city council, acted in an unconstitutional manner in denying their application to rezone a two-tract parcel of land from Office & Institutional, and Residential Townhome Development, to Neighborhood Shopping, in order to permit the construction of a shopping mall at the intersection of Hurt and Concord Roads in the City of Smyrna.
The subject property is composed of a 3.901-acre tract owned by appellant Ramen Patel, and an 8.083-acre tract of land owned by appellant Richard Thompson.
The foregoing acreage is part of a 22.059-acre tract of land, which was the subject property in
City of Smyrna v. Ruff,
In the present case, the appellants contend that this holding in
Ruff
is a “binding precedent” here.
Standard Oil Co. v. Harris,
The appellants also contend that, under criteria enunciated in
Guhl v. Holcomb Bridge Rd. Corp.,
For reasons which follow, we reject these arguments and affirm. These are the facts:
The evidence in Ruff showed that the 22.059-acre tract is a triangular tract of land and is adjacent to Concord and Hurt Roads, which are two heavily traveled roads. The tract is located in a “fringe area” between commercial and residential properties. Future land-use maps for Cobb County and the City of Smyrna designated this property for office and institutional use. Concerns as to traffic congestion were not addressed by the city. And, the evidence showed that the property was worth $230,000 as zoned for single-family residential use; whereas the property was worth $760,000 if rezoned for neighborhood shopping, and office and institutional use, which was its highest and best use.
Following our decision in Ruff, the City of Smyrna rezoned the Patel tract to Office & Institutional, and the Thompson tract was rezoned to Neighborhood Shopping. However, in 1983, Ralph Combs, who had purchased what is now referred to as the Thompson tract, filed an application for rezoning of that tract to Residential Townhome Development, and the application was granted.
In June of 1984, appellant Thompson bought that tract, and in October of 1986, appellant Patel bought the other tract involved in this case.
As found by the trial court, the evidence in this case shows that the Thompson tract has appreciated in value since its purchase by Thompson, and, with regard to the Patel tract, the evidence shows “little loss in value.”
However, these tracts have not yet been developed, although there have been other successful single-family and multi-family residential developments in the area.
In any event, both Patel and Thompson have entered into contracts to sell their properties to appellant, Jebco Ventures, Inc., conditioned upon the granting of their rezoning application.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court in this case entered findings of fact to the effect that the subject property tends to be a dividing line between properties which are almost exclusively residential in one direction and commercially developed properties in the other direction.
And, as to the remaining facts of this case, it is sufficient to state that, although the evidence as a whole fully supports the trial court’s findings, there is some conflict in the evidence in regard to whether the commercial development of the subject property would adversely affect the market valuation of surrounding residential properties; *601 whether such decreased valuation of surrounding properties would outweigh any decrease in the valuation of the subject property under its current, rather than proposed, zoning classification; whether development of the subject property for single-family or multi-family residential use is feasible under the facts and circumstances of this case; and whether the construction of a shopping center on this property would significantly increase traffic congestion in the area.
A real estate appraiser testifying on behalf of the appellants stated that, in his opinion, the market value of the Patel tract is $255,000, as presently zoned, and the market value of the Thompson tract is $400,000, as presently zoned; whereas, if rezoned General Commercial, these two tracts would have a combined market valuation of $1,550,000.
1. As previously stated, the appellants’ first contention is that City of Smyrna v. Ruff, supra, constitutes a “binding precedent” in regard to the issue of whether the residential zoning of the subject property is constitutional.
As we noted in
Norris v. Atlanta &c. R. Co.,
As further noted in
Norris,
the doctrine of “binding precedent,” as applied in
Bray
and
Standard Oil,
is “a species of collateral estoppel in which no privity is required.”
In this regard, a plea of collateral estoppel, or estoppel by judgment, bars parties or their privies from relitigating issues which they have actually had adjudicated at a prior time, even though the adjudication may have taken place in a cause of action, or in litigation of a claim, different from the one at bar.
Lowe Engineers, Inc. v. Royal Indem. Co.,
Under the doctrine of “binding precedent,” as applied in
Bray
and
Standard Oil,
it was held that trial-court rulings, as sustained on appeal, were binding upon the party defendant against whom an issue of liability had been adjudicated, when a nonparty to the prior proceeding sued such party defendant under “substantially similar allegations.”
Bray,
supra,
This rule also bears similarity to an aspect of the “law of the case rule,” which has continuing viability. In this regard, the “law of the case rule,” as applied in
Hill v. Willis,
In any event, it was noted in
Norris
that although other jurisdictions use the term “binding precedent” as synonymous with the doctrine of stare decisis, this term, as applied in
Bray
and
Standard Oil,
is applied by no other jurisdiction. And, in
Norris,
it was held that, “[o]ur treatment of
Stapleton v. Palmare,
2. The appellants’ remaining argument is that an application of the criteria in Guhl v. Holcomb Bridge Rd. Corp., supra, to the evidence in this case demands the conclusion that the existing residential zoning of the subject property causes the appellants a significant economic detriment, and does not bear a substantial relationship to the public interest. We disagree.
Subsequent to our decision in
Ruff,
it has been recognized that there is always an economic loss in comparing a property’s value as zoned residential to its value as zoned commercial.
Holy Cross Lutheran Church, Inc. v. Clayton County,
Hence the evidence that the subject property would be more valuable if rezoned . . . borders on being irrelevant. On the other hand, the evidence as to the value of the land as zoned is critical . . . [L]andowners may not decline to develop land in a permissible manner and concurrently use the fact that the land is undeveloped to show that the permitted use is unconstitutional. [Footnote omitted.] [Chamblee Dunwoody Hotel, supra,248 Ga. at 190 .]
And, as noted in the
Holy Cross
case, in zoning controversies involving “fringe areas” — that is, property which is zoned residential and which lies on the periphery of a residential zoning district, with encroaching commercial development taking place on adjacent property — the local governing body is the “more appropriate one” to decide, in the “best interests of the locality and its citizens,” where “the line as to these encroachments” should be drawn.
In the present case, the municipal governing authority has drawn that line. And, the evidence in this case supports the trial court’s rul *603 ing that, notwithstanding the economic detriment suffered by the appellants under the existing zoning, the property as zoned has substantial value; and, by providing a buffer between commercial and residential areas, the existing zoning bears a substantial relationship to the public interest. Chamblee Dunwoody Hotel, supra.
Judgment affirmed.