Coweta County v. City of Senoia, S02A0959.
| Decision Date | 12 November 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. S02A0959.,S02A0959. |
| Citation | 275 Ga. 707,573 S.E.2d 21 |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
| Parties | COWETA COUNTY v. CITY OF SENOIA et al. |
Glover & Davis, A. Mitchell Powell, Jr., Jerry A. Conner, Newnan, for appellant.
Rosenzweig, Jones & MacNabb, George C. Rosenzweig, Sara A. Evans, Newnan, Mullins, Whalen & Westbury, Andrew J. Whalen III, Virginia S. Martin, Griffin, for appellee.
The City of Senoia (hereinafter "City") sought to annex a portion of Coweta County (hereinafter "County").1 At a county commission meeting, the agenda of which included the question of whether to object to the annexation, the city attorney appeared and said the mitigative measures being considered by the County would be acceptable. The annexation was then approved with four mitigative measures: single-family use; city water and sewer service; all lots developed along the common border would be a minimum of 1.6 acres; and preliminary plats would be submitted to the County for review of compliance with mitigative measures. Following approval of the annexation by the city council, a plat of the proposed development of the annexed area was sent to the County on July 25, 2001, prompting a response from the County that the plat did not comply with the mitigative measures. Specifically, rather than developing 1.6 acre lots on the boundary with the County, the plat called for a 50-foot undeveloped buffer. The city council subsequently approved the plat. The County filed a complaint seeking declaratory judgment, mandamus, and an injunction, and Classic Community Development, LLC, the developer, intervened. The parties bifurcated the issues and submitted to the trial court initially the questions of whether there was an agreement between the County and the City regarding the conditions of annexation; if there was an agreement, whether it was clear enough to be interpreted by the court; and if the answers to both of those questions were yes, whether the City had applied the mitigative measure calling for developed lots on the City-County boundary to be at least 1.6 acres in size. Following a non-jury trial, the trial court ruled against the County, holding that there was an agreement, that the County did not follow the non-agreement procedures in the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) adopted by the County and the City in 1998 pursuant to OCGA § 36-70-24(4)(C), that the terms of the agreement were unambiguous, and that the plat submitted did not violate the agreement. The County appeals from those rulings.
1. The County first takes issue with the trial court's finding that there was an agreement between the parties regarding the conditions of annexation. The sole basis for the County's position on this issue is its contention that the City did not agree to all the terms of the proposed agreement because it did not respond in writing to a letter from the County's director of planning which requested such a response. As the City notes, however, the record shows that the only action taken by the county commission was to approve the annexation proposal with four mitigative measures. The county commission did not impose a requirement that the City respond in writing; that request came from the County's planning director. The agreement in question was between the two governments, the County and the City, not between the City and the County's planning director. The requirement of a written response was not, therefore, part of the agreement. It is unquestioned that the City proceeded under the agreement, including a vote of the city council to include in the annexation the conditions imposed by the County. Since the evidence of record supports the trial court's finding that there was an agreement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Amerireach.com, LLC v. Walker
...“ ‘Issues never raised at trial will not be considered for the first time on appeal. (Cit.)’ [Cit.]” Coweta County v. City of Senoia, 275 Ga. 707, 709(4), 573 S.E.2d 21 (2002). Dr. Walker has not challenged at trial or on appeal the general enforceability of the forum selection clause which......
-
Kace Investments, LP v. Hull, No. A03A1012
...raised at trial will not be considered for the first time on appeal." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Coweta County v. City of Senoia, 275 Ga. 707, 709(4), 573 S.E.2d 21 (2002). We will not consider Kace's Supremacy Clause and federal postal regulation arguments since they were not rais......
-
D.C. County v. Branton
...argument was not raised below and the trial court has not ruled on it, it will not be considered here. See Coweta County v. City of Senoia, 275 Ga. 707, 709(4), 573 S.E.2d 21 (2002). ...
-
State Farm Fire v. Walnut Avenue Partners
...Hurst v. Grange Mut. Cas. Co., 266 Ga. 712, 716(4), 470 S.E.2d 659 (1996) (citation omitted). 7. Id. 8. See Coweta County v. City of Senoia, 275 Ga. 707, 708(2), 573 S.E.2d 21 (2002). 9. The trial court did not rule on whether the undisputed evidence showed that the release of the dry clean......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...specifically allows them to sue, but also because if the city annexed their property, they would be obligated to pay city taxes." Id. 8. 275 Ga. 707, 573 S.E.2d 21 (2002). 9. Id. at 708, 573 S.E.2d at 22. 10. Id. (citation omitted). The agreement was part of the dispute resolution process f......