City Council of Augusta v. Irvin, 40520
| Decision Date | 23 April 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,No. 40520,40520,3 |
| Citation | 137 S.E.2d 82,109 Ga.App. 598 |
| Parties | CITY COUNCIL OF AUGUSTA v. Willis IRVIN, Jr |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The method of procedure prescribed in the passage of an ordinance or resolution by county or municipal authorities, to whom authority to legislate has been delegated by statute or charter, must be strictly followed. Unless the ordinance or resolution is adopted in compliance with the conditions and directions given, it will have no force.
2. (a) It is essential that a map or maps be correlated to the text of the ordinance contemplated in Ga.L.1957, pp. 420-443, and that the map or maps be formally adopted by the governing authority as a part of the ordiannce.
(b) The map or maps form an indispensable part of the ordinance. Without them the ordinance is void.
3. The certificate considered in this division of the opinion is meaningless.
4. Municipalities are authorized to enact by reference as parts of ordinances, documentary matter where: (1) The document is sufficiently identified so that there is no uncertainty as to what was adopted; (2) The document is made a public record; (3) The document must be accessible to members of the public who are, or may be affected by it; and (4) The adopting ordinance must give notice of this accessibility.
Irvin, as plaintiff, brought a declaratory judgment action against the City Council of Augusta alleging his efforts to secure building permits to erect structures on realty owned by him within the city limits of Augusta and the refusal by the city to issue the permits on the ground that the types of the proposed structures were prohibited in the particular locations by the effective zoning ordinance and the zoning map. The petition alleged that no zoning map had been adopted by the city council and thus no valid restriction under the zoning ordinance existed on the use of plaintiff's realty. The petitioner sought a declaration by the court of his right to be issued the permit to construct the buildings.
The case was tried by the judge without the intervention of a jury. At the conclusion of the trial a judgment was entered in which the court held that no valid zoning map had been adopted by the City Council of Augusta; that plaintiff's applications to defendant for building permits were proper and the permits were illegally withheld; and that the zoning ordinance, without the aid of a map, is too vague and indefinite for enforcement and is void. The court enjoined the defendant from interfering with plaintiff's use of his property and directed that the building permits be issued to him.
The defendant excepts to the refusal of the trial judge to grant its motion for a new trial on the general grounds only.
Fulcher, Fulcher, Hagler & Harper, Samuel C. Waller, Cumming, Nixon, Eve, Waller & Capers, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
Claud R. Caldwell, Augusta, for defendant in error.
1. Toomey v. Norwood Realty Co., 211 Ga. 814, 816, 89 S.E.2d 265, 267, Mayor and Council of Waynesboro v. McDowell, 213 Ga. 407, 409, 99 S.E.2d 92.
The General Assembly in Ga.L.1957, pp. 420-443, Code Ann. Ch. 69-12, empowered the municipalities and counties, jointly or severally, to regulate through zoning ordinances or resolutions various enumerated uses of realty. The Act outlined in detail the method of procedure to be followed by the local governmental units in exercising the power granted. Code Ann. § 69-1208 prescribes the method of procedure to be used in the final stages of the adoption of the zoning ordinance, while Code Ann. § 69-1210 directs the procedure to be pursued in amending the ordinance after adoption. Each of these statutory provisions refers repeatedly to the 'Zoning ordinance * * * including the maps.' Invariably throughout the statute the words 'ordinance' and 'maps' are used in the conjunctive sense. Thus there is clearly displayed the legislative intent that the maps be correlated to the text of the ordinance and that they constitute an indispensable part of the ordinance. Under the principle stated by the Supreme Court in the Toomey case, it is essential in order to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Rincon v. Ernest Cmtys., LLC
...as provided in the statute or charter is generally mandatory and exclusive of all other methods."); City Council of Augusta v. Irvin , 109 Ga. App. 598, 599 (1), 137 S.E.2d 82 (1964) ; see also Friedman v. Goodman , 219 Ga. 152, 159 (3) (b), 132 S.E.2d 60 (1963) ("Neither the charter of the......
-
Newton Cnty. v. E. Ga. Land & Dev. Co.
...S.E.2d 475 (1961). See also City of Flovilla v. McElheney, 246 Ga. 552, 552(1), 272 S.E.2d 287 (1980) ; City Council of Augusta v. Irvin, 109 Ga.App. 598, 600(1), 137 S.E.2d 82 (1964). The County does not dispute that the maps are an essential part of the ordinance. The only such maps that ......
-
Sampson v. Karnes
...the ordinance itself.... See, State ex rel. Weiks v. Town of Tumwater, 66 Wash.2d 33, 400 P.2d 789 (1965); City Council of Augusta v. Irvin, 109 Ga.App. 598, 137 S.E.2d 82 (1964); Moon v. Smith, 138 Fla. 410, 189 So. 835 In the present case, contemporaneously with adopting the zoning ordina......
-
Bible v. Marra, s. 25577
...an accurate reference to the map or plat of the property to be affected by the zoning amendment, and cite City Council of Augusta v. Irvin, 109 Ga.App. 598, 137 S.E.2d 82, in which the Court of Appeals held that a map or maps form an indispensable part of the zoning ordinance. This holding ......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law
...standard." Id.26. O.C.G.A. § 5-4-12(b) (2019); York, 348 Ga. App. at 63, 821 S.E.2d at 125. 27. See City Council of Augusta v. Irvin, 109 Ga. App. 598, 600, 137 S.E.2d 82, 84 (1964).28. Barrett v. Hamby, 235 Ga. 262, 265, 219 S.E.2d 399, 401 (1975).29. See Flowers, 300 Ga. App. at 820, 797 ......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law
...at 63, 821 S.E.2d at 125.52. See e.g., Clayton Cnty, 351 Ga. App. at 347, 830 S.E.2d at 811.53. See City Council of Augusta v. Irvin, 109 Ga. App. 598, 600, 137 S.E.2d 82, 84 (1964); see also Barrett v. Hamby, 235 Ga 262, 265, 219 S.E.2d 399, 401 (1975).54. See Cumming, 300 Ga. App. at 820,......