City of Atlanta v. Awtry Lowndes Co.

53 S.E.2d 358, 205 Ga. 296, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 350
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedApril 12, 1949
Docket16559.
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 53 S.E.2d 358 (City of Atlanta v. Awtry Lowndes Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
City of Atlanta v. Awtry Lowndes Co., 53 S.E.2d 358, 205 Ga. 296, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 350 (Ga. 1949).

Opinion

1. Under the zoning ordinance of the City of Atlanta, undertaking establishments, together with other business and uses enumerated as Class U-7, may, under § 93-210 of the Code of the City of Atlanta, be located in any use district; provided such use in such location will in the judgment of the Board of Zoning Appeals substantially serve the public convenience and welfare, and will not substantially and permanently injure the appropriate use of the neighboring property. McCord v. Ed Bond Condon Co., 175 Ga. 667 (165 S.E. 590, 86 A.L.R. 703). *Page 297

2. Where, under the terms of a city code, a particular business can not be located in any use district except by a permit from the Board of Zoning Appeals, and when to procure said permit it is necessary to establish that the use intended would substantially serve the public welfare and not substantially and permanently injure the appropriate use of the neighboring property, the burden of proof is on the applicant. Hyer v. Holmes Co., 12 Ga. App. 837 (3) (79 S.E. 58); 42 Am.Jur. 466, § 131; 31 C. J. S. 718, § 108.

3. Whether to issue a permit allowing the undertaking establishment to locate in this particular use district was a question in the discretion and judgment of the Board of Zoning Appeals under the terms of the Code, City of Atlanta, § 93-210, and the courts will not control this discretion unless manifestly abused. Chipstead v. Oliver, 137 Ga. 483 (2) (73 S.E. 576).

4. If the evidence had shown only a fanciful or aesthetic reason why the permit was not granted, the board would have abused its discretion; but there being some evidence, though in conflict with other evidence, that the funeral home would substantially and permanently injure the appropriate use of the neighboring property, this court can not say the board's action was unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory.

Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals is

Reversed. All the justices concur.

No. 16559. APRIL 12, 1949. REHEARING DENIED MAY 12, 1949.
Awtry and Lowndes Company sought the permission of the Board of Zoning Appeals to relocate its undertaking establishment from 21 Cain Street to 396 Ponce de Leon Avenue, a building which at that time was being used by the Standard Club, a private social organization. The Yaarab Temple of the Shriners, a fraternal organization, owning the lot adjoining the Standard Club property on the west, interposed an objection, asserting that they had acquired the property for the purpose of erecting a mosque. From the evidence it is apparent that the term "mosque" as here used denotes a club, home lodge, or headquarters.

The north side of Ponce de Leon Avenue, where both pieces of property are situated, had been zoned for business property. Under the zoning ordinance of the City of Atlanta, designated as U-7, are: crematory, cemetery, sewage disposal plant, refuse dump, undertaking establishment, and certain described markets or vacant lots, and church. Under the Code of the City of Atlanta, § 93-210, it is provided: "Use district exceptions. (a) The Board of Zoning Appeals may in a specific case, after public notice and hearing and subject to appropriate conditions *Page 298 and safeguards, determine and vary the application of the use district regulations herein established in harmony with their general purposes and intent as follows: . . (5) Permit the location of a Class U-7 use in any use district provided such use in such location will in the judgment of the Board of Zoning Appeals substantially serve the public convenience and welfare and will not substantially and permanently injure the appropriate use of the neighboring property."

Pursuant to the foregoing provisions of the City Code, the Board of Zoning Appeals had a hearing at which both the applicant and the objectors were heard. Awtry and Lowndes Company, the applicant, produced evidence substantially as follows:

C. C. Styron, Chief of the Fire Department, testified: that, under the present location of the applicant — by reason of its close proximity to Number 8 Fire Station, the parking and processions incident to a funeral, the frequency of funeral processions being required to proceed from the present funeral home and pass the fire station in order to reach cemeteries in certain sections of the city — such conditions directly affect the safety of the city, if a fire should occur, as there would necessarily be a delay of the fire trucks, and it would be for the best interest of the city from a fire hazard and a safety standard, if they were permitted to move to some other place.

Herbert T. Jerkins, Chief of Police, testified: That there is traffic congestion on Cain Street between Peachtree and Spring, by reason of its use for a funeral. It is one of the most congested areas, and if the funeral home was elsewhere, it would improve traffic conditions.

Marvin Thomas, Captain of Traffic of the Police Department, testified: That traffic on Cain Street between Peachtree and Spring Streets is acute, and that something must be done to relieve the situation. Heavy loading and unloading of trucks on the south side and several funerals a week on the north side, where the funeral home is located, necessitate parking at an angle or double parking; and it is sometimes necessary to completely block out the traffic. If the funeral home was moved from this location, it would help greatly to clear the volume of traffic on Cain Street.

W. C. Wallace testified: That he owned the adjoining property on the east side of the Standard Club and on the west side *Page 299 of the property of the Shrine. For the past fifteen years he has operated a hotel and tourist home next to the Standard Club, and both he and his guests are constantly annoyed late at night and in the small hours of the morning by the noise, horn blowing, hollering, and screeching at the Standard Club, and that it does not cease when their attention is called to it and a request is made. His driveway is often blocked by the cars of people attending the club. Conditions at this club have made his rooms upon that side of his building undesirable by some of his patrons and their rental value his diminished. He further testified that he was in favor of the application being granted; and that it would be an improvement over present conditions, as he felt that he could sleep better next to the dead.

Mrs. W. C. Wallace also advocated granting the application.

Dr. Paul James, Pastor of the Baptist Tabernacle on Luckie Street, and Chairman of the Baptist Student Committee who were erecting a students' center almost directly across the street from the proposed location of the funeral home, testified that both he and the student committee could see nothing against having the funeral home there and rather favored that location for it.

J. W. Awtry testified: That he is President of Awtry and Lowndes Company; that they had been located on Cain Street since 1922; that there is not any noise or disturbance about the funeral mortuary either in the daytime or at night. The funerals are conducted in the daytime, except that once or twice a year there would be one in the evening. That he was a member of the Shrine and practically all of their activities are carried on at night. All the bands practice and all the different organizations meet at night. The Shrine functions at night mostly and the mortuary in the day time.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee
807 S.E.2d 876 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 2017)
Johnson v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ETC.
239 N.W.2d 873 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1976)
Cook v. Howard
215 S.E.2d 690 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1975)
Pruitt v. Meeks
177 S.E.2d 41 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1970)
North Georgia Development Co. v. Edge
145 S.E.2d 490 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1965)
Rogers v. Mayor &C. of Atlanta
137 S.E.2d 668 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Galfas v. Ailor
57 S.E.2d 834 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1950)
Awtry Lowndes Company v. City of Atlanta
54 S.E.2d 277 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
53 S.E.2d 358, 205 Ga. 296, 1949 Ga. LEXIS 350, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-atlanta-v-awtry-lowndes-co-ga-1949.