Meeks v. City of Buford

Plaintiffs had no vested rights to utilize their property in accordance with an unexercised zoning because plaintiffs made no substantial expenditures in reliance on the variance.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellants, trustees of a medical pension plan, appeal from the trial court’s order denying and dismissing their petition for declaratory and mandamus relief in a case in which appellants assert they have a vested property right to utilize investment property in accordance with a zoning variance granted in 1985. Because appellants failed to establish that they acquired a vested property right, we affirm.

In July 1985, the City of Buford enacted a zoning ordinance wherein the zoning classification for the 30 acres of undeveloped land at issue here was changed from RM-13 residential multi-family with a density of 13 units per acre to RM-8 residential multi-family with a density of 8 units per acre. At the time, the property was under contract for sale with a prior potential purchaser. On November 18, 1985 the City’s Zoning Board of Appeals approved a variance regarding the property which allowed a density of 11-12 units per acre without time limitations or conditions precedent. The City thereafter forwarded a letter to the Gwinnett County Planning and Zoning Department regarding the variance and requesting a building permit be granted to the then-potential purchaser of the property. However, the potential purchaser never bought the property and the building permit never issued. On December 30, 1986 appellants purchased the property contingent upon unconditional zoning for multi-family use with 13 apartment units allowable per acre, acknowledgment by the City that it had no future plans to rezone the property, and guaranteed issuance of development and building permits for the property. Appellants relied on the existing variance and approved development plan as satisfaction of these contingencies. Appellants expended approximately $500,000 in purchasing the property and have paid property taxes and interest on the promissory notes since 1986.

Meeks v. City of Buford

Plaintiffs had no vested rights to utilize their property in accordance with an unexercised zoning because plaintiffs made no substantial expenditures in reliance on the variance.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report