King v. City of Bainbridge

The plaintiff did not have to exhaust her administrative remedies before she could challenge a zoning ordinance as unconstitutional on its face.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Appellant Ethel King owns a tract of land in Decatur County, Georgia. A substantial part of the tract is located within the city limits of Bainbridge, Georgia the City and is zoned as R-2 two family and multiple family residential. Pursuant to the City’s zoning ordinance, mobile homes with a HUD sticker are not permitted within R-2 zoning districts and a permit must be obtained before any house, including mobile homes, may be erected or placed on real property in the City. On September 2, 1995, King placed a mobile home with a HUD sticker on the portion of her property within the Bainbridge city limits. On September 5, 1995 a building officer discovered the mobile home and informed King that the mobile home must be removed. It was determined that 90 percent of the mobile home is within the city limits and that the home could be moved to another part of King’s property outside the city limits and still have the proper setbacks. King was then again notified that she had to move the mobile home. Despite receiving several warnings from the City, King installed electricity, air conditioning, a septic tank and added a porch to the home. At no time did she apply for or obtain any permits, variances or rezoning from the City.

On December 13, 1995, King received notice that the zoning ordinance could be changed or modified only by the mayor or city council. She was advised to contact the city manager in order to present her case to the city council at its next meeting. King did not contact any city official and did not appear at the city council meeting. King also received a letter from the city attorney advising her that if she did not move the mobile home, suit would be filed. King did nothing, and in January 1996 the City filed an action seeking an interlocutory and permanent injunction to enjoin King from continuing to violate the City’s zoning ordinance. In defense, King claimed the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional on its face in that it exceeds the City’s police powers and violates her substantive due process rights.

King v. City of Bainbridge

The plaintiff did not have to exhaust her administrative remedies before she could challenge a zoning ordinance as unconstitutional on its face.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report