Ladzinske v. Allen, S05A1866.
Decision Date | 17 January 2006 |
Docket Number | No. S05A1866.,S05A1866. |
Citation | 280 Ga. 264,626 S.E.2d 83 |
Parties | LADZINSKE v. ALLEN et al. |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
J.M. Raffauf, Decatur, for Appellant.
Scott William Peters, Nathan Michael Wheat, David H. Flint, Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint, L.L.P., Atlanta, Eugene Charles Reed, Jr., William J. Linkous, III, Viviane H. Ernstes, DeKalb County Law Department, Decatur, for Appellee.
Academy of America, Inc. leases to Academy of Lithonia, Inc. the facilities necessary for it to operate as a charter school. Beginning in 2001, the DeKalb County Department of Public Works considered the charter school to be exempt from the local zoning ordinance, and granted all necessary building permits and certificates of occupancy. In November 2003, the County issued a permit for the construction of a new building. Although the permit was posted on the property in a conspicuous place, Richard Ladzinske, who lives across the road from the charter school, raised no objection until after construction had actually commenced. Based on his inquiries in April and May, 2004, however, the County placed a hold on the construction and conducted an investigation. In August 2004, the Development Director and the Zoning Administrator affirmed that the charter school is exempt from the zoning ordinance, that the new building constitutes a valid accessory use to the charter school's operations, and that the building permit was properly issued. The construction resumed, and, in November 2004, Ladzinske brought suit for mandamus, injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages against Academy of America and other entities associated with it (School Appellees) and against the County and its CEO, Development Director, and Zoning Administrator (County Appellees).
After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court concluded that the charter school was immune from local zoning ordinances, that the new building comes within the zoning exemption, and that Ladzinske failed to appeal from the issuance of the building permit to the County Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). The trial court dismissed his claims for mandamus and declaratory relief, on the ground of his failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and denied an interlocutory injunction due to laches and the extreme unlikelihood of success on the merits. The trial court also held that these claims must fail because Academy of America had spent over $6.4 million on the project and had a vested right in the building permit. Ladzinske filed a notice of direct appeal from this order.
This case comes within our appellate jurisdiction Mid-Georgia Environmental Mgmt. Group v. Meriwether County, 277 Ga. 670, 671(1), 594 S.E.2d 344 (2004). See also Lamar County v. E.T. Carlyle Co., 277 Ga. 690, 691(1), 594 S.E.2d 335 (2004). "The underlying subject matter, however, is relevant to determining whether a party is entitled to a direct appeal or must file an application to appeal from a mandamus action." Mid-Georgia Environmental Mgmt. Group v. Meriwether County, supra. Appellees have moved to dismiss this appeal because of Ladzinske's failure to follow the discretionary appeal procedures as required by OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1). That statutory provision requires that Ferguson v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 275 Ga. 255, 256(1), 564 S.E.2d 715 (2002).
In interpreting and applying OCGA § 5-6-35(a)(1), this Court first looked to the underlying subject matter in zoning cases, beginning with Trend Development Corp. v. Douglas County, 259 Ga. 425(1), 383 S.E.2d 123 (1989). O S Advertising Co. of Ga. v. Rubin, 267 Ga. 723, 724(1), 482 S.E.2d 295 (1997). We subsequently ruled in Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467, 448 S.E.2d 192 (1994) that, if the underlying subject matter of the appeal, even in non-zoning cases, concerns the review of an administrative decision, then the discretionary appeal procedures must be followed. Ferguson v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Examiners, supra. Thus, Mid-Georgia Environmental Mgmt. Group v. Meriwether County, supra. This requirement also applies where Dunlap v. City of Atlanta, 272 Ga. 523, 524, 531 S.E.2d 702 (2000).
The clear intent of OCGA § 5-6-35 Ferguson v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Examiners, supra. This rationale for requiring a discretionary application does not apply where the person who seeks to appeal was not a party to the administrative proceedings, unless he had standing to participate therein, but purposely opted out at the administrative level. Ferguson v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Examiners, supra at 258(2), fn. 19, 564 S.E.2d 715; Best Tobacco v. Dept. of Revenue, 269 Ga.App. 484, 485-486, 604 S.E.2d 578 (2004).
Ladzinske did not actually become a party to any administrative proceeding, and the DeKalb County Code does not contain any provision which would have enabled him to participate at the administrative level before and during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Int'l Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Inc.
...5–6–35 (a) (1) applies. See, e.g., Hamryka v. City of Dawsonville , 291 Ga. 124, 126–127, 728 S.E.2d 197 (2012) ; Ladzinske v. Allen , 280 Ga. 264, 265, 626 S.E.2d 83 (2006) ; Ferguson , 275 Ga. at 256 (1), 564 S.E.2d 715. More important, the holdings in the published decisions of this Cour......
-
Diversified Holdings, LLP v. City of Suwanee, S17A1140
...one, involve the type of administrative decision that requires a discretionary application to appeal. See, e.g., Ladzinske v. Allen, 280 Ga. 264, 265-266, 626 S.E.2d 83 (2006) (neighboring landowner seeking to challenge a zoning decision was required to file a discretionary appeal despite t......
-
Wolfe v. Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga.
...proceedings, not merely the form of the relief sought." Keystone Knights, 299 Ga. at 407, 788 S.E.2d 455. Accord Ladzinske v. Allen, 280 Ga. 264, 265, 626 S.E.2d 83 (2006) ; Ferguson v. Composite State Bd. of Med. Examiners, 275 Ga. 255, 256–257, 564 S.E.2d 715 (2002). "If a party to a judi......
-
Jordan v. Dep't of Natural Res.
...does not apply where the person who seeks to appeal was not a party to the administrative proceedings" at issue. Ladzinske v. Allen , 280 Ga. 264, 265, 626 S.E.2d 83 (2006). Georgia courts look "to the ‘parties’ in the administrative proceedings below ... in the generic sense of whether the......
-
Local Government Law - R. Perry Sentell, Jr.
...funds____" Id. at 485, 614 S.E.2d at 766 (Fletcher, C.J., dissenting). 155. 280 Ga. 241, 626 S.E.2d 79 (2006). 156. Id. at 244-45, 626 S.E.2d at 83. The superior court clerk sought to mandamus the county to include her within the county's pension plan. She protested the county's decision to......
-
Administrative Law - Martin M. Wilson and Jennifer A. Blackburn
...at 651, 619 S.E.2d at 683. 158. Ponce v. State, 279 Ga. App. 207, 630 S.E.2d 840 (2006). 159. Id. at 210, 630 S.E.2d at 843. 160. Id. 161. 280 Ga. 264, 626 S.E.2d 83 (2006). 162. Id. at 264, 626 S.E.2d at 84. 163. Id. 164. Id. 165. 275 Ga. 255, 564 S.E.2d 715 (2002). 166. 264 Ga. 467, 448 S......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law - Dennis J. Webb, Jr., Marcia Mccrory Ernst, Victor A. Ellis, Amitabha Bose, and Joseph L. Cooley
...Id., 616 S.E.2d at 117. 111. Id., 616 S.E.2d at 116-17 (citing Upson v. Stafford, 205 Ga. App. 615, 617, 422 S.E.2d 882, 884 (1992)). 112. 280 Ga. 264, 626 S.E.2d 83 (2006). 113. Id. at 264, 626 S.E.2d at 84. 114. Id. 115. Id. 116. Id. 117. Id. 118. Id. at 264-65, 626 S.E.2d at 84-85. 119. ......
-
Zoning and Land Use Law
...737 (citing Diversified Holdings, 302 Ga. at 603-04, 807 S.E.2d at 883).129. Id. at 438, 848 S.E.2d at 737-38 (quoting Ladzinske v. Allen, 280 Ga. 264, 265, 626 S.E.2d 83, 85 (2006)).130. Id. at 436-37, 848 S.E.2d at 736.131. . Id. 132. Ga. H.R. Bill 1098, Reg. Sess. (2020) (codified at O.C......