grandfather clause in Georgia

2012In Patrick, 296 Ga. App. 343 , we construed one provision of the Fair Dismissal Act’s grandfather clause that is analogous to the provision at issue here.

2012In Patrick, 296 Ga. App. 343 , we construed one provision of the Fair Dismissal Act’s grandfather clause that is analogous to the provision at issue here.

2023However, subsection (b) (1) could reasonably be construed as a grandfather clause to permit variances for owners of exceptionally narrow, shallow, or shaped properties, i.e., nonconforming lots, that predated the enactment of zoning regulations.7 Even if subsection (b) (1), which is plainly written in the disjunctive, forms an incomplete thought, any ambiguity8 must be construed in favor of the free use of the property.9 “[H]owever awkward and unusual the language may be, the legislative 7 See generally King v. Putnam County Bd. of Commrs., 266 Ga. 208 ( 467 SE2d 509 ) (1996) (holding that a p

2023However, subsection (b) (1) could reasonably be construed as a grandfather clause to permit variances for owners of exceptionally narrow, shallow, or shaped properties, i.e., nonconforming lots, that predated the enactment of zoning regulations.7 Even if subsection (b) (1), which is plainly written in the disjunctive, forms an incomplete thought, any ambiguity8 must be construed in favor of the free use of the property.9 “[H]owever awkward and unusual the language may be, the legislative 7 See generally King v. Putnam County Bd. of Commrs., 266 Ga. 208 ( 467 SE2d 509 ) (1996) (holding that a p

2023See also City of LaGrange v. Ga. Power Co., 185 Ga. App. 60, 61 ( 363 SE2d 286 ) (1987) (the grandfather clause provides “for an exception to the [large-load] customer-choice provision when the customer’s premises has been lawfully served previously by a provider pursuant to the Act”).

2023See also City of LaGrange v. Ga. Power Co., 185 Ga. App. 60, 61 ( 363 SE2d 286 ) (1987) (the grandfather clause provides “for an exception to the [large-load] customer-choice provision when the customer’s premises has been lawfully served previously by a provider pursuant to the Act”).

2023See, e.g., 7 Sumter, supra, 286 Ga. at 607 (interpreting a provision in the Territorial Act “by considering the entire statute”); Funvestment Group, LLC v. Crittenden, 364 Ga. App. 447 , 454 (1) (b) (ii) ( 875 SE2d 436 ) (2022) (explaining that this Court cannot “add a line to the law” and that “the General Assembly does not enact a general intention; it enacts statutes; that statutes have words, which have meanings; and that it is those meanings that we interpret and apply, not some amorphous general intention”) (citations and punctuation omitted).

2023However, subsection (b) (1) could reasonably be construed as a grandfather clause to permit variances for owners of exceptionally narrow, shallow, or shaped properties, i.e., nonconforming lots, that predated the enactment of zoning regulations.7 Even if subsection (b) (1), which is plainly written in the disjunctive, forms an incomplete thought, any ambiguity8 must be construed in favor of the free use of the property.9 “[H]owever awkward and unusual the language may be, the legislative 7 See generally King v. Putnam County Bd. of Commrs., 266 Ga. 208 ( 467 SE2d 509 ) (1996) (holding that a p

2023However, subsection (b) (1) could reasonably be construed as a grandfather clause to permit variances for owners of exceptionally narrow, shallow, or shaped properties, i.e., nonconforming lots, that predated the enactment of zoning regulations.7 Even if subsection (b) (1), which is plainly written in the disjunctive, forms an incomplete thought, any ambiguity8 must be construed in favor of the free use of the property.9 “[H]owever awkward and unusual the language may be, the legislative 7 See generally King v. Putnam County Bd. of Commrs., 266 Ga. 208 ( 467 SE2d 509 ) (1996) (holding that a p

2023However, subsection (b) (1) could reasonably be construed as a grandfather clause to permit variances for owners of exceptionally narrow, shallow, or shaped properties, i.e., nonconforming lots, that predated the enactment of zoning regulations.7 Even if subsection (b) (1), which is plainly written in the disjunctive, forms an incomplete thought, any ambiguity8 must be construed in favor of the free use of the property.9 “[H]owever awkward and unusual the language may be, the legislative 7 See generally King v. Putnam County Bd. of Commrs., 266 Ga. 208 ( 467 SE2d 509 ) (1996) (holding that a p

2023However, subsection (b) (1) could reasonably be construed as a grandfather clause to permit variances for owners of exceptionally narrow, shallow, or shaped properties, i.e., nonconforming lots, that predated the enactment of zoning regulations.7 Even if subsection (b) (1), which is plainly written in the disjunctive, forms an incomplete thought, any ambiguity8 must be construed in favor of the free use of the property.9 “[H]owever awkward and unusual the language may be, the legislative 7 See generally King v. Putnam County Bd. of Commrs., 266 Ga. 208 ( 467 SE2d 509 ) (1996) (holding that a p

2023However, subsection (b) (1) could reasonably be construed as a grandfather clause to permit variances for owners of exceptionally narrow, shallow, or shaped properties, i.e., nonconforming lots, that predated the enactment of zoning regulations.7 Even if subsection (b) (1), which is plainly written in the disjunctive, forms an incomplete thought, any ambiguity8 must be construed in favor of the free use of the property.9 “[H]owever awkward and unusual the language may be, the legislative 7 See generally King v. Putnam County Bd. of Commrs., 266 Ga. 208 ( 467 SE2d 509 ) (1996) (holding that a p