Syfert Injury Law Firm
Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448
(Code 1981, §12-8-24, enacted by Ga. L. 1990, p. 412, § 1; Ga. L. 1991, p. 462, § 1; Ga. L. 1992, p. 3276, §§ 4, 5; Ga. L. 1993, p. 399, §§ 5, 6; Ga. L. 1994, p. 1922, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 10, § 12; Ga. L. 1997, p. 1081, § 1; Ga. L. 2000, p. 1641, § 1; Ga. L. 2005, p. 1247, § 7/SB 122; Ga. L. 2010, p. 235, § 1/HB 1059; Ga. L. 2013, p. 171, § 1/HB 320.)
The 2010 amendment, effective July 1, 2010, designated paragraph (e)(1) as subparagraphs (e)(1)(A) through (e)(1)(C); added "Reserved." in paragraph (e)(1)(A); designated subparagraph (e)(1)(C) as divisions (e)(1)(C)(i) and (e)(1)(C)(ii); and added divisions (e)(1)(C)(iii) and (e)(1)(C)(iv).
The 2013 amendment, effective July 1, 2013, added subsection (k).
- Granting of permission by counties to persons contracting to transport and dump trash, garbage, or other refuse at publicly or privately owned dumps, § 36-1-16.
- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1990, "March 30, 1990" was substituted for "the effective date of this part" near the beginning of subsection (c).
Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1991, a comma was inserted following "March 30, 1990" in subsection (b) (now subsection (c)).
Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1993, "landfills" was substituted for "land fills" in paragraph (e)(5) and "42 U.S.C. Section 7401" was substituted for "42 U.S.C. 7401" in subsection (i).
- For annual survey of administrative law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 31 (2004). For note on 1991 enactment of this Code section, see 8 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 16 (1992). For note on 1992 amendment of this Code section, see 9 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 199 (1992).
- Provisions of this article and the rules that apply to the regulation of out-of-state waste, or "special solid waste," specifically former § 12-8-27 and Rule 391-3-4.10, in their entirety, and O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24 and Rule 391-3-4-.02, insofar as they require a permit for the handling of special solid waste, are unconstitutional burdens upon interstate commerce. Southern States Landfill, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 801 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1992) (decided prior to repeal of § 12-8-27 by Ga. L. 1993, p. 399).
State failed to justify the state's requirements that one must obtain a special solid waste handling permit prior to engaging in out-of-state waste disposal; that an out-of-state waste handler must submit a waste analysis plan, through which the operator must obtain a representative sample from every load of out-of-state waste received and perform a detailed chemical and physical analysis on the sample; that out-of-state waste be accompanied by a manifest at all times that the waste is in the state of Georgia; that $10.00 per ton be charged as a fee on out-of-state waste; and that the Environmental Protection Division of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources be authorized to inspect at random any out-of-state generators that dispose of their waste in Georgia. Southern States Landfill, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 801 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1992).
That out-of-state generators may be less trustworthy than in-state generators is an insufficient reason to burden interstate commerce in solid waste disposal since a load of in-state waste is no different from a load of out-of-state waste apart from origin. Southern States Landfill, Inc. v. Georgia Dep't of Natural Resources, 801 F. Supp. 725 (M.D. Ga. 1992).
"Georgia need" provision in paragraph (b)(1) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-4, which regulates permits for biomedical waste thermal treatment facilities, is unconstitutional as violative of the commerce clause. Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Reheis, 887 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
"Transportation restrictions" set forth in subsection (c) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-4 and regulations thereunder, to the extent the restrictions place certain conditions on an applicant's permit for the transportation of biomedical waste from a jurisdiction generating solid waste destined for the applicant's facility, are unconstitutional as violative of the commerce clause. Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Reheis, 887 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
"Planning requirements" set forth in subsection (g) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-31.1, and regulations thereunder, insofar as they require an applicant for a permit for a biomedical waste thermal treatment facility to provide certain verifications regarding out-of-state jurisdictions generating solid waste destined for the applicant's facility, are unconstitutional as violative of the commerce clause. Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Reheis, 887 F. Supp. 1534 (N.D. Ga. 1994).
Application of 1994 amendment to paragraph (e)(1) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24 to permit application filed prior to effective date of amendment violated constitutional prohibition against retroactive laws which injuriously affect vested rights of citizens. Recycle & Recover, Inc. v. Georgia Bd. of Natural Resources, 266 Ga. 253, 466 S.E.2d 197 (1996).
- When a treatment facility applied for a modification of the facility's permit less than three years after commencement of the facility's operations, but before the amendment of subsection (e) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24 imposing the three-year waiting period, the trial court erred in upholding the board's decision giving retroactive effect to the amendment. Recycle & Recover, Inc. v. Georgia Bd. of Natural Resources, 266 Ga. 253, 466 S.E.2d 197 (1996).
- Requirement of subsection (g) of O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24, pertaining to documentation by an applicant of participation by the host jurisdiction and all jurisdictions generating waste destined for the applicant's facility in an approved solid waste plan, applies before a permit may be issued; the provision does not call for conditioning issuance of a permit upon a continuing obligation to submit planning verification. Environmental Waste Reductions, Inc. v. Legal Envtl. Assistance Found., Inc., 216 Ga. App. 699, 455 S.E.2d 393 (1995).
- O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24(g) did not prohibit local governments from considering factors other than environmental and land use factors in developing a Solid Waste Management Plan (SWMP), and a local government was authorized to consider any relevant factor in determining whether a proposed facility was consistent with its SWMP that it properly considered in the SWMP itself; the Supreme Court of Georgia overruled Butts County v. Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc., 213 Ga. App. 510, 445 S.E.2d 294 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) and held that a trial court erred in ruling that a county improperly considered factors other than environmental and land use factors in refusing to issue a verification to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division regarding an applicant's proposed landfill. Murray County v. R&J Murray, LLC, 280 Ga. 314, 627 S.E.2d 574 (2006).
Because a buyer's proposed landfill would not be a public utility, but would be privately-owned, the buyer was not entitled to a written verification of zoning compliance so the buyer could pursue a state permit to build a landfill; hence, the county was properly granted summary judgment as to this issue. EarthResources, LLC v. Morgan County, 281 Ga. 396, 638 S.E.2d 325 (2006).
County properly denied verification under O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24(g) of a limited liability company's proposal for a landfill because the relevant factors in developing the county's solid waste management plan, such as the costs and financing of a landfill that supported the county's one-landfill strategy, were considered; the county also properly considered the sustainability of a landfill as it related to citizens' protection, health, and safety and furthered the purposes of the Solid Waste Management Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-8-20 et seq. R&J Murray, LLC v. Murray County, 282 Ga. 740, 653 S.E.2d 720 (2007), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1053, 128 S. Ct. 2476, 171 L. Ed. 2d 767 (2008).
- When county invalidly refused to verify that proposed landfill site was consistent with the county's solid waste management plan, mandamus against the county to compel verification was the appropriate remedy. Butts County v. Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc., 213 Ga. App. 510, 445 S.E.2d 294 (1994), overruled on other grounds by Murray County v. R & J Murray, LLC, 280 Ga. 314, 627 S.E.2d 574 (2006).
Trial court properly entered a declaratory judgment against a limited liability limited partnership (LLLP) and properly denied the LLLP's request for a writ of mandamus as the LLLP was not entitled to a verification letter since the county's zoning ordinance was properly enacted, and the LLLP's land was not zoned for a landfill. Mid-Georgia Envtl. Mgmt. Group, L.L.L.P. v. Meriwether County, 277 Ga. 670, 594 S.E.2d 344 (2004).
Applicant for a solid waste handling facility was entitled to mandamus relief seeking to compel a city to issue written verification that a proposed solid waste handling facility did not violate any zoning or land use ordinances and that it was consistent with all solid waste management plans because: (1) the city did not comply with O.C.G.A. § 12-8-31.1(a) and (b); and (2) the city could not rely on the city's solid waste management plan to deny the written verification under O.C.G.A. § 12-8-24(g), which was consistent with the city's plan approved in 1993. McKee v. City of Geneva, 280 Ga. 411, 627 S.E.2d 555 (2006).
- Intermediate court properly transferred an application for discretionary review filed by a limited liability limited partnership (LLLP), seeking review of the denial of the partnership's request for a writ of mandamus, to the Georgia Supreme Court, as cases involving the grant or denial of mandamus are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Georgia Supreme Court without regard to the underlying subject matter or the legal issues raised. As the case involved permitting requirements for landfills, it concerned a statutory scheme requiring a permit from the state for a land use that was regulated by the state, and the LLLP was entitled to a direct appeal from the denial of its mandamus action. Mid-Georgia Envtl. Mgmt. Group, L.L.L.P. v. Meriwether County, 277 Ga. 670, 594 S.E.2d 344 (2004).
- When a proposed solid waste landfill expansion was in compliance with the county's zoning ordinances at the time the applicants sought written verification of compliance, the applicants had a vested right to obtain written verification despite the subsequent enactment of a restated zoning ordinance. Banks County v. Chambers of Ga., 264 Ga. 421, 444 S.E.2d 783 (1994).
Cited in Pine Ridge Recycling, Inc. v. Butts County, 886 F. Supp. 851 (M.D. Ga. 1994); ENRE Corp. v. Wheeler County Bd. of Comm'rs, 274 Ga. 17, 549 S.E.2d 67 (2001).
- In light of the similarity of the statutory provisions, opinions under Ga. L. 1973, pp. 1269 and 1270 are included in the annotations for this Code section.
- Director may, if the director deems it relevant, require that information accompany a solid waste permit application indicating whether the permit, if granted, would result in a violation of local zoning regulations or ordinances. 1976 Op. Att'y Gen. No. 76-14 (decided under Ga. L. 1973, pp. 1269, 1270).
- 51 Am. Jur. 2d, Licenses and Permits, §§ 9 et seq., 56 et seq.
Total Results: 12 | Sort by: Relevance | Newest First