Dyches v. McCorkle
| Decision Date | 28 February 1994 |
| Docket Number | Nos. A93A1727,A93A2361,s. A93A1727 |
| Citation | 212 Ga.App. 209,441 S.E.2d 518 |
| Parties | DYCHES v. McCORKLE et al. DYCHES v. YOUNG et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Inglesby, Falligant, Horne, Courington & Nash, Thomas A. Nash, Savannah, for appellant.
Chamlee, Dubus & Sipple, George H. Chamlee, Emily E. Garrard, Ranitz, Mahoney, Coolidge & Mahoney, Thomas J. Mahoney, Jr., Savannah, for appellees.
The question in these appeals is whether Dyches has a triable claim for damages against the Chatham County Metropolitan Planning Commission(MPC) and Board of Commissioners, as a result of the disapproval of his preliminary plan for a subdivision on the ground that his drainage plan did not comply with the Subdivision Regulations of Chatham County.
On February 12, 1992, Dyches submitted his application to the MPC requesting approval of a preliminary plan for Phase I of Chriswoodelle Subdivision on the Isle of Hope in Chatham County.
The Isle of Hope is described as an area of great charm, with high land values.Poor drainage, particularly during heavy rainfall on a high tide, is a recurrent annoyance.Fears that a new subdivision might disrupt the quiet environment and worsen drainage problems generated considerable public opposition to Dyches' proposal.Initial concerns over other matters such as traffic were allayed, and the focus of the public controversy became drainage.The Dyches property is located on a section of Isle of Hope called Parkersburg, which is drained by a county drainage ditch or canal that flows through a tidegate ultimately into the Skidaway River.Rainwater flows toward the lowest point in the drainage area, which is a patch of wetlands, a small portion of which lies within the proposed subdivision.Dyches was granted permission by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to place fill dirt in his portion of the wetlands.Neighbors were concerned that construction of the subdivision would heighten existing drainage problems, by decreasing the storage area for rain run-off by filling wetlands and by increasing the speed of run-off onto adjacent properties.
The Subdivision Regulations require the subdivision permit to be denied if the projected increased run-off from the subdivision would overload the capacity of the channel downstream or increase flood stages upstream, unless improvements are made to provide storage capacity for the additional run-off to prevent such adverse effects, and unless equivalent flow and storage capacity is replaced and maintained within a flood plain easement.Sub.Reg. § 702.01.3b.In addition, all subdivisions shall be provided with drainage structures sufficient to accommodate a 50-year storm flood.Sub.Reg. § 601.02.
The MPC, charged with responsibility for administering the Subdivision Regulations, has the duty to inspect and approve or disapprove preliminary plans for subdivisions and to recommend approval or disapproval of final plats.Sub.Reg. § 700.If the MPC finds that the proposed design of the subdivision shown on the preliminary plan complies with the design requirements of the subdivision regulations, it shall approve the preliminary plan; if the MPC disapproves a preliminary plan, it shall give the developer the reasons for such disapproval in writing.Sub.Reg. § 702.04.When a developer receives approval of the preliminary plan, he may proceed with such things as opening streets and laying out lots.Sub.Reg. § 702;§ 702.04.With approval of the final plat, the developer can sell lots or construct houses.
Grading and drainage plans are to be approved by the city or county engineers and by the MPC to insure conformity with all applicable requirements of the ordinance and other city/county code provisions.Sub.Reg. § 700.However, the MPC staff has no technical expertise in drainage matters; and, prior to submission of Dyches' application, it had been the unvarying custom of the MPC not to require developers to submit a grading and drainage plan prior to approval of a preliminary plan, but rather to approve the preliminary plan subject to later approval of drainage by the city or county engineer.The MPC was not informed that this practice was inconsistent with the Subdivision Regulations until this controversy arose.Beginning with Dyches' application, the MPC process was changed so that a developer seeking approval of a preliminary plan must now submit a grading and drainage plan.
Consistent with the MPC's customary process, the drainage information submitted by Dyches with his initial application was sufficient to warrant the MPC staff's and county engineer's recommendation of approval with conditions.No violations of Subdivision Regulations were found.
Following a hearing, the MPC on May 27, 1992, denied approval of the preliminary plan "due to the lack of specific information needed to determine the suitability of the site for a major subdivision."In its decision, the MPC stated that it needed additional information concerning, among other things, storm water drainage.When the members of the MPC discussed their decision with the staff, the major concern of several members was the containment of increased run-off.Information was requested from Dyches concerning run-off during floods and the effect that the site fill would have on run-off.After the May 27 meeting, the MPC staff engaged in discussions with Dyches and his engineers and informed them that a drainage plan would be needed.
Dyches appealed the MPC's denial of his preliminary plan to the Board of Commissioners, which was likewise provided with a recommendation by the MPC staff and county engineer.Pursuant to Dyches' request that the Board place this matter on its agenda, it held public hearings on June 26 and July 17, 1992.At the latter hearing, the Board voted to uphold the MPC's decision.
On July 20, Dyches filed a petition for mandamus and damages against the commissioners, in their representative capacities and individually.He stated that in accordance with administrative appeal procedures he had appealed the MPC's denial of the preliminary plan to the county commission.On November 5, 1992, the superior court granted the commissioners' motion to dismiss the petition on the ground that the Subdivision Regulations confer upon the MPC and not the commissioners the duty to approve or disapprove preliminary subdivision plans.Dyches appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, Dyches returned to the MPC at its August 18, 1992, meeting with a drainage study by his engineers.This study concluded that the impacts of the proposed development would be minor and that the drainage area would not be adversely affected if proposed improvements were put in place.A drainage study does not, however, contain such things as construction drawings and specifications of drainage facilities, and it is not a drainage plan.The MPC tabled Dyches' application because he did not submit a complete set of drainage plans as required by the Subdivision Regulations.Dyches' engineers subsequently submitted a set of grading and drainage plans to the county engineer, who recommended approval.
Dyches' application was considered by the MPC at a public hearing on December 1, 1992.At that time, Dyches submitted a complete set of grading and drainage plans to the MPC for the first time.1At the hearing, residents requested that the proposed development be denied because of the drainage problem.Representatives of engineering firms retained by the residents stated that the proposed drainage system would not be adequate to accommodate the drainage from this development, because this is low land and the storage capabilities of the site will be taken away if it is filled properly.Assailing Dyches' engineering report's calculations and conclusions as to such things as storm water discharge, storage capacity, and excavation requirements, an Isle of Hope resident with an engineering background presented a list of reasons against approval of the application.An MPC member moved to deny the application based on "the need to protect the integrity of the neighborhood."Another member stated that the reason for the denial was based on "the quandary regarding the dispute between the learned engineers."The motion passed, with six members voting for it, two opposed, and one abstaining.
Pursuant to standard procedure, the MPC staff reviewed the minutes of the December 1 meeting and compiled a written decision based upon their opinion of the voting consensus.Since litigation was pending, they verified its accuracy with MPC members who had voted to disapprove the application, although this practice is not standard procedure.
The MPC decision states that its primary outstanding concern was the protection of adjacent properties from the potential flooding impacts of a 50-year storm event, following development of the site.The decision also states that the MPC could not conclusively find that the loss of the site's natural storm water drainage and retention/storage areas as a result of proposed filling would be effectively offset by the stormwater storage area proposed by Dyches.
This decision and other evidence show that there were MPC members who relied on the opinions of engineers opposing Dyches' drainage plan, rather than their independent review of the plan and the Subdivision Regulations, in making their decision.
On January 8, 1993, Dyches filed a petition for mandamus and damages against the members of the MPC in their representative capacities and individually.As to whether Dyches was entitled to approval of the preliminary plan, the legal and factual dispute centered upon the county drainage ditch and tidegate, a proposed storage pond within Dyches' property, and the extent to which replacing wetland with fill would aggravate flood "upstream," i.e., in higher portions of the Isle of Hope.After conducting a de novo trial, the court granted the petition for mandamus....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Drug Emporium, Inc. v. Peaks, A97A0710
...and punctuation omitted.) Hendon v. DeKalb County, 203 Ga.App. 750, 758(5), 417 S.E.2d 705 (1992); see also Dyches v. McCorkle, 212 Ga.App. 209, 216(2), 441 S.E.2d 518 (1994). The facts stated in the complaint and the failure of appellant to put up any evidence at trial as to punitive damag......
-
Marshall v. Mcintosh Cnty. Marshall, s. A14A0639
...misconduct “is based on an actual intention to do harm or inflict injury.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Dyches v. McCorkle, 212 Ga.App. 209, 217(2), 441 S.E.2d 518 (1994). “Bad faith is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but it imports a dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity,......
-
Culpepper v. Thompson
...(1994) (additional immunity to sovereign immunity which covers both ministerial and discretionary actions); Dyches v. McCorkle, 212 Ga.App. 209, 215-216(2), 441 S.E.2d 518 (1994); Johnson v. MARTA, 207 Ga.App. 869, 871-872(2), 429 S.E.2d 285 (1993). "Bad faith is not simply bad judgment or ......
-
Sweet City Landfill, LLC v. Lyon
...regardless of whether the nature of the person's actions at issue were ministerial or discretionary. See Dyches v. McCorkle , 212 Ga. App. 209, 215, 441 S.E.2d 518 (1994). Here, Sweet City contends that the actions taken by the County Commission in its private meeting before the public meet......
-
Torts - Cynthia Trimboli Adams and Charles R. Adams, Iii
...hospitals. Id. at 43, 440 S.E.2d at 197. See also Lemonds v. Walton County Hosp. Auth., 212 Ga. App. 369, 441 S.E.2d 821 (1994). 311. 212 Ga. App. 209, 441 S.E.2d 518 (1994). 312. See O.C.G.A. Sec. 51-2-20 (Supp. 1994). This statute provides that [a] person serving [on] any local government......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...case." Id. 306. Id. at 873-74, 437 S.E.2d at 861 (quoting Trend Dev. Corp. v. Douglas County, 259 Ga. 425, 383 S.E.2d 123 (1989)). 307. 212 Ga. App. 209, 441 S.E.2d 518 (1994). 308. Id. at 209, 441 S.E.2d at 519. 309. Id. at 210, 441 S.E.2d at 520. 310. Id. at 215-16, 441 S.E.2d at 523-24 (......