Rockdale Cnty. v. U.S. Enters., Inc.

Decision Date02 November 2021
Docket NumberS21A0718, S21X0719
Citation865 S.E.2d 135
Parties ROCKDALE COUNTY v. U.S. ENTERPRISES, INC. et al. U.S. Enterprises, Inc. et al. v. Rockdale County.
CourtGeorgia Supreme Court

William Joseph Linkous, III, Hall County Law Department, 2875 Browns Bridge Road, 4th Floor, Administration, Gainesville, Georgia 30504, Mirza Qader Ali Baig, M. Qader A. Baig & Associates, LLC, 913 Commercial Street, Conyers, Georgia 30013, for Appellant in S21A0718.

Roy E. Barnes, Benjamin Robert Rosichan, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, 31 Atlanta Street, Marietta, Georgia 30060, Richard A. Carothers, Carothers & Mitchell, LLC, 1809 Buford Highway, Buford, Georgia 30518, for Appellee in S21A0718.

Roy E. Barnes, Benjamin Robert Rosichan, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, 31 Atlanta Street, Marietta, Georgia 30060, for Appellant in S21X0719.

Richard A. Carothers, Carothers & Mitchell, LLC, 1809 Buford Highway, Buford, Georgia 30518, William Joseph Linkous, III, Hall County Law Department, 2875 Browns Bridge Road, 4th Floor, Administration, Gainesville, Georgia 30504, Mirza Qader Ali Baig, M. Qader A. Baig & Associates, LLC, 913 Commercial Street, Conyers, Georgia 30013, for Appellee in S21X0719.

Nahmias, Chief Justice.

This case arises from Rockdale County's denial of an application for a permit to build a QuikTrip on property owned by William Corey and U.S. Enterprises, Inc. (the "Owners"), on the ground that the proposed facility is a "truck stop," which is a prohibited use under the County's Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO"). After the County's Board of Adjustment affirmed the denial of the permit, the Owners filed a petition in the Rockdale County Superior Court seeking, among other things, certiorari under OCGA § 5-4-1 et seq. The superior court sustained the petition for certiorari, rejecting the County's argument that the Owners’ lawsuit was barred by res judicata and reversing the Board's decision on the ground that the UDO's applicable definition of a "truck stop" was unconstitutionally vague and therefore violated due process under the Georgia Constitution. See Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. I ("No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law.").

After this Court granted the County's application for a discretionary appeal, the County appealed, and the Owners then cross-appealed. For the reasons explained below, in the County's appeal, we affirm the superior court's rejection of the County's res judicata argument, reverse the part of the superior court's judgment ruling that the "truck stop" definition was unconstitutionally vague, and remand the case for further proceedings. Our holding makes it unnecessary to address the Owners’ cross-appeal, which we accordingly dismiss as moot.1

1. The record shows the following. In August 2019, the Owners applied to the County for a land disturbance permit to construct a QuikTrip "convenience store with fuel pumps" on 7.6 acres of their property that is located near Interstate 20 and zoned C-2, which allows for a "[g]asoline station with convenience store" but prohibits a "[t]ruck stop." UDO §§ 218-1; 214-11. The site plans for the QuikTrip include four entrances to the parking lot; a 7,318 square feet convenience store; an 8,176 square feet canopy near the front of the store with 10 gasoline fueling stations for automobiles; a 4,193 square feet higher canopy with six diesel fueling stations near the back of the store; 69 parking spaces, including 14 spaces for heavy trucks; truck weigh scales; and air pumps.

The Owners submitted "Constitutional and Statutory Challenges" with their permit application, asserting, among other things, that the proposed facility did not meet the UDO's definition of a "truck stop" and that a denial of the permit would violate their right to due process under the Georgia Constitution because the definition of a "truck stop" was "overbroad, vague, and fail[ed] to set forth a standard [on] which a reasonable person could understand and rely."2 In September 2019, the County's Planning and Development staff denied the Owners’ application on the ground that the proposed QuikTrip constituted a prohibited "truck stop."

Section 214-11 of the UDO says: "Truck stops are prohibited. Furthermore, no adjoining or adjacent uses shall be physically connected or used so as to effectively create a truck stop." The UDO in effect at the time the Owners applied for the permit defined a "Truck stop" as follows:

A prohibited use that includes any building, premises, or land in which or upon which a business, service, or industry involving the maintenance, servicing, storage, or repair of heavy trucks and similar commercial vehicles is conducted or rendered, including the dispensing of motor fuel or other petroleum products primarily for such heavy trucks and similar commercial vehicles and the sale of accessories or equipment for heavy trucks and similar commercial vehicles, as well as overnight accommodations, showers, overnight customer parking, or restaurant facilities for the use of crews of heavy trucks and similar commercial vehicles.

UDO § 106-1 (c).3 The UDO defines "Truck, heavy" as "[t]rucks, including truck tractors, and similar vehicles with two or more rear axles." Id. The UDO defines "Vehicle, commercial" in pertinent part as "[v]ehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating ... of 10,001 pounds or more used as a part of a business."4 Id. The UDO does not define "restaurant facilities," but it defines "Restaurant" as "[a]n establishment in which the primary purpose is preparing, serving, and consuming food and beverages." Id.

Although the UDO prohibits truck stops in all zoning districts in the County, it permits "[g]asoline station[s] with convenience store[s]" in zone C-2, where the Owners’ property is located. UDO § 218-1. The UDO defines "Gasoline station with convenience store" as "[a] gasoline station that includes a retail store that sells a limited line of groceries and household items." UDO § 106-1 (c). Overnight accommodations, showers, and overnight parking are prohibited at gasoline stations with convenience stores, which "shall not be combined with any other use(s) or facility so as to create a truck stop." UDO § 218-13 (aa) (11)-(12). Finally, the UDO says that all words not otherwise defined in the UDO "are intended to have the commonly accepted definitions contained in a recent edition of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary." UDO § 106-1 (b) (4).

The Owners appealed the Planning and Development staff decision to the County's Board of Adjustment. See UDO §§ 238-7; 238-8 (conferring power to and setting forth the procedures for the Board of Adjustment to decide appeals from an administrative official's decision enforcing the UDO). The Owners asserted in pertinent part that the proposed facility did not meet the UDO's definition of a "truck stop" and that the denial of the permit violated their right to due process under the Georgia Constitution. The Board considered the appeal at a November 2019 meeting, during which the Owners argued, among other things, that the proposed QuikTrip did not meet the UDO's definition of a "truck stop" because the facility would be used primarily for the sale of gasoline to automobiles and did not provide overnight accommodations or parking. The Board reserved ruling on the appeal so that the parties could submit more information about the proposed facility.5 At a meeting on December 2, 2019, the Board voted unanimously to affirm the denial of the land disturbance permit.

On December 23, 2019, the Owners filed a petition, which they later amended, in the Rockdale County Superior Court, seeking certiorari, a declaratory judgment, an injunction, mandamus, and attorney fees.6 The Owners claimed, in pertinent part, that the "truck stop" section of the UDO violated the Georgia Constitution because it was "overbroad and violate[d] Due Process" and that the Board of Adjustment erred by determining that the proposed QuikTrip qualified as a "truck stop."

After the defendants and respondents filed motions to dismiss, the superior court issued an order on August 7, 2020, denying the motion to dismiss the certiorari claim but granting the motion to dismiss (without prejudice) the claims for declaratory judgment, injunction, and mandamus. After further briefing by the Owners, the County renewed its motion to dismiss the certiorari claim, arguing that the lawsuit was barred by res judicata because in 1999, the Owners had filed an unsuccessful lawsuit against the County challenging the denial of a land disturbance permit to build a "travel plaza" on the same property, and that the vagueness challenge was not properly raised.

On August 24, 2020, the superior court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss. Near the end of the hearing, the court orally ruled that res judicata did not bar the Owners’ claims and that the UDO's definition of a "truck stop" was "facially invalid on due process grounds because of vagueness and ambiguity." On September 4, 2020, the court issued an order sustaining the Owners’ amended certiorari petition and reversing the Board of Adjustment's decision denying the permit on the ground that the UDO's definition of a "truck stop" was vague and therefore violated due process under the Georgia Constitution. The court ruled that the terms "maintenance," "servicing," "similar commercial vehicles," "primarily," "accessories," and "restaurant" were vague. The court also said that it was unclear whether one or all of the requirements listed in the definition must be met because the definition did "not consistently say ‘or’ or ‘and’ " and used "as well as," which "seem[ed] to require all requirements to be met after that phrase." The court noted that the County had argued during the hearing that the proposed QuikTrip's entrances with large turning radiuses, raised canopy, scales, 14 parking spaces, and large area for trucks were indicia of a truck stop, but that none of those standards were set...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • In re Interest of T.B.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 1, 2022
  • In re T.B.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • June 1, 2022
    ... ...          This ... case requires us to determine whether a child charged with ... apply that definition." Rockdale County v. U.S ... Enterprises, Inc. , 312 Ga. 752, ... ...
  • In re C.C.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • August 23, 2022
  • In re C.C.
    • United States
    • Georgia Supreme Court
    • August 23, 2022
    ... ... See ... WMW, Inc. v. Am. Honda Mot. Co. , 291 Ga. 683, 685 ... (2) ... considerations compel us to reach the conclusion that this ... case is not ... See Rockdale County v. U.S. Enters., Inc. , 312 Ga ... 752, 768 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT