Tilley Properties, Inc. v. Bartow County
| Decision Date | 15 March 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. S90A1639,S90A1639 |
| Parties | TILLEY PROPERTIES, INC., et al. v. BARTOW COUNTY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
G. Conley Ingram, Peter M. Degnan, Nancy Glenn, Alston & Bird, Atlanta, David G. Archer, Archer & Howell, Cartersville, for Tilley Properties, Inc., et al.
G. Carey Nelson, Nelson & Bradley, Cartersville, Frank E. Jenkins, III, Jenkins & Eells, Atlanta, for appellees.
James F. Grubiak, amicus curiae.
Appellants, Tilley Properties, Inc. and Vulcan Materials Company, own over 700 acres of real property in Bartow County. In 1986, Bartow County enacted its first zoning ordinance, and the appellants' property was zoned A-1, agricultural. Appellant Vulcan wants to mine the granite on the property, and in 1989 the appellants sought to have the property rezoned to M-1 so that it could be mined. The application was denied. The appellants filed an action in the Bartow County Superior Court in which they sought, among other things, the rezoning of the property. Five months later, May 21, 1990, the complaint was amended and the appellants prayed for a writ of mandamus to compel the appellees to issue a certificate of zoning compliance.
At the June 5, 1990 hearing, the appellants argued that the zoning ordinance is null and void because it was not enacted in compliance with the Zoning Procedures Law (ZPL), OCGA § 36-66-1 et seq. The trial court disagreed, the petition for a writ of mandamus was denied, and the trial court upheld the Bartow County Zoning Ordinance. We reverse.
1. The appellants argue that the trial court erred in refusing to hold the ordinance invalid because Bartow County did not follow the mandatory language of the ZPL. Specifically, Bartow County did not conduct a public hearing for the purpose of adopting the policies and procedures to govern the calling and conducting of zoning hearings. OCGA § 36-66-5. 1
In McClure v. Davidson, 258 Ga. 706, 710, 373 S.E.2d 617 (1988), this Court examined the legislative intention in enacting the Zoning Procedures Law, (ZPL) OCGA § 36-66-1 et seq., and held that the procedures specified were mandatory and that non-compliance with the procedures would invalidate any zoning decisions after the effective date of the ZPL. The Bartow County ordinance was enacted after the effective date of the ZPL.
The ZPL establishes as state policy, "minimum procedures governing the exercise of [the zoning] power." OCGA § 36-66-2(a). All local governments are required to adopt policies and procedures to govern calling and conducting zoning hearings. OCGA § 36-66-5(a). Printed copies of the policies and procedures must be available for distribution to the public. Id. "Prior" to the adoption of the policies and procedures, OCGA § 36-66-5(c), a local government must publish within a newspaper of general circulation a notice of the public hearing, OCGA § 36-66-4, and a public hearing must be held on the proposed action. Id.
Bartow County did not comply with the mandatory language of the statute. There was no public notice in the newspaper, as required by OCGA § 36-66-5(c), informing the public that there would be a hearing prior to adopting the policies and procedures, and there was no public hearing in which policies and procedures were adopted. The testimony at the trial court hearing establishes, beyond a doubt, that policies and procedures were not adopted at a public hearing for that purpose. OCGA § 36-66-5. 2 Additionally, there was no mention in the proposed ordinance about policies and procedures, "[a] fortiori, the General Assembly intended non-compliance with the procedures to invalidate any zoning decision after [January 1, 1986]." McClure, at 710, 373 S.E.2d 617. The trial court erred in failing to hold that the County did not comply with the statute and that the ordinance is void.
2. The trial court denied the appellants' petition for a writ of mandamus on the ground that the ordinance was validly enacted. It also reasoned that if the ordinance was invalid there would be no clear legal right to a certificate.
According to the appellants' amendment to their complaint, the Department of Natural Resources (Environmental Protection Division) forbids the operation of a rock quarry without a surface mining permit. However, a condition precedent to the issuance of the permit is a certificate of land use approval from the local governing authority. Without the certificate of land use approval, a surface mining permit cannot be issued, and without the surface mining permit, a quarry cannot be allowed. A "county has the duty and obligation to work with property owners to allow them the highest and best use of their property...." DeKalb County v. Flynn, 243 Ga. 679, 680, 256 S.E.2d 362 (1979). Where, as in this case, the zoning ordinance is invalid, there is no valid restriction on the property, and the appellant has the right under the law to use the property as it so desires. Because there is no other specific legal remedy for the legal right, OCGA § 9-6-20, a writ of mandamus will lie to compel the officer to issue a certificate of land use to the appellant so that it might attempt to obtain a surface mining permit.
Judgment reversed.
All the Justices concur, except HUNT, J., who concurs in judgment but dissents to Division 2, and BENHAM, and FLETCHER, JJ., who dissent.
1. (a) Appellants contend that the zoning ordinance is invalid because Bartow County did not hold a public hearing concerning a proposed ordinance that would establish policies and procedures governing the calling and conducting of public hearings at which a zoning ordinance is to be adopted. Using the logic employed by appellants, a separate ordinance establishing the policies and procedures for the public hearing must be enacted prior to any public hearing held for the purpose of considering the adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance.
(b) Section 13 of the proposed zoning ordinance and Section 13 of the ordinance that was eventually adopted are identical. I conclude that Section 13 contains provisions establishing policies and procedures which adequately govern the calling and conduct of public hearings. Printed copies of the proposed ordinance were made available to the general public prior to the scheduled public hearing. The Commissioner of Bartow County caused a notice of the hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within Bartow County. This notice was published on January 9th, 16th,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
GREATER ATLANTA H'BLDRS v. DeKalb County
...non-compliance with them in adopting and revising the tree ordinance renders that ordinance void. Tilley Properties v. Bartow County, 261 Ga. 153, 154-155(1), 401 S.E.2d 527 (1991). See also Atlanta Bio-Med v. DeKalb County, supra at 596(2), 408 S.E.2d 2. Even conceding for the sake of argu......
-
Carson v. Brown
...of his landfill, the trial court erred by denying [the appellant’s] petition for mandamus.").47 See Tilley Prop. Inc. v. Bartow Cty. , 261 Ga. 153, 153, 401 S.E.2d 527 (1991) (noting that complaint sought "among other things, the rezoning of the property" and that complaint was "amended and......
-
Tanner Advertising Group v. Fayette County, No. 04-13210.
...has a vested property right in sign permits that were denied under a challenged ordinance. The reliance by Tanner on Tilley Properties, Inc. v. Bartow County is also 261 Ga. 153, 401 S.E.2d 527 (1991). The Georgia Supreme Court in Tilley addressed whether owners of land that was zoned agric......
-
Brantley Cnty. Dev. Partners, LLC v. Brantley Cnty.
...on the property, and the [landowner] has the right under the law to use the property as it so desires." Tilley Props., Inc. v. Bartow Cnty., 261 Ga. 153, 401 S.E.2d 527, 529 (1991) (compelling a local official to issue a verification of zoning consistency for an EPD permit after finding the......
-
Real Property
...823 (2015), reconsideration denied (Apr. 7, 2015).384. Id. at 879, 769 S.E.2d at 824, 825 (citing Tilley Props., Inc. v. Bartow Cnty., 261 Ga. 153, 154-55, 401 S.E.2d 527, 528 (1991)).385. Id. at 879-80, 769 S.E.2d at 825.386. Id. at 880, 769 S.E.2d at 825. While the lawsuit was pending, th......
-
Administrative Law
...REV. 1 (2014). 2. 331 Ga. App. 878, 769 S.E.2d 823 (2015).3. Id. at 879, 769 S.E.2d at 824-25.4. See Tilley Props., Inc. v. Bartow Cnty., 261 Ga. 153, 401 S.E.2d 527 (1991).5. See O.C.G.A. §§ 36-66-1 to -6 (2012).6. Southern States, 331 Ga. App. at 879, 769 S.E.2d at 824; see also Tilley Pr......