County denies Khalilah Few's permit to open hair salon despite meeting requirements

In Georgia, Khalilah Few is engaged in a legal battle against Clayton County after the Board of Commissioners denied her conditional use permit to open a hair salon, despite her compliance with all necessary requirements. This denial occurred in July after she had signed a two-year lease for her new salon in an old barbershop in Jonesboro. She contends that the county's argument about an oversaturation of similar businesses was subjective and arbitrary, especially since her business plan resonated with the county's economic development objectives. Her frustrations were heightened by the fact that she only learned of the county's rationale during her meeting with the zoning advisory board. Despite the Board of Commissioners acknowledging that her business aligns with the county's developmental plan, Commissioner DeMont Davis voted against her application, suggesting that the location was unsuitable. This disconnect left Many questioning the fairness of the county's handling of permit applications, especially as Few's salon met all required criteria. In the context of previous similar denials, it becomes evident that there might be an uneven application of the conditional use permit regulations, specifically within District 4, where some personal service businesses can operate without a permit, while others, like hair salons, cannot. Additionally, Few's situation is not unique; the county's actions have affected other aspiring salon owners similarly. Several have reported facing hurdles while seeking conditional use permits, raising concerns regarding potential violations of due process rights as stated by the Georgia Supreme Court in the case of Raffesnber v. Jackson. This legal precedent emphasizes the importance of protecting individuals' rights to pursue lawful occupations without unreasonable governmental interference, a principle that is now central to Few's lawsuit. As Few navigates this challenging landscape, she highlights her compliance and willingness to contribute positively to the local economy, which raises further questions about the underlying motives for the county's decisions. With ongoing legal challenges, Few's case may set a significant precedent for how similar businesses can be treated in Clayton County and beyond.