Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 36-36-11 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 36-36-11 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 36-36-11

TITLE 36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

Chapter 36 information not found

ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS

36-36-11. Effect of objection to land use following rezoning; minimum procedures for addressing issues.

  1. The intent of this Code section is to provide a mechanism to resolve disputes over land use arising out of the rezoning of property to a more intense land use in conjunction with or subsequent to annexation in order to facilitate coordinated planning between counties and municipalities particularly with respect to areas contiguous to municipal boundaries; provided, however, that on and after September 1, 2007, such dispute resolutions shall be governed by the provisions of Article 7 of this chapter and the provisions of this Code section shall be limited to proceedings initiated prior to such date.
  2. As used in this Code section, the term "objection" means an objection to a proposed change in land use which results in a substantial change in the intensity of the allowable use of the property or a change to a significantly different allowable use.
    1. When an initial zoning of property is sought pursuant to subsection (d) of Code Section 36-66-4 or when the rezoning of annexed property is sought within one year of the effective date of the annexation, the municipal corporation shall give notice to the county governing authority within seven calendar days of the filing of the application for initial zoning or rezoning. Upon receipt of such notice, the county governing authority shall have seven calendar days to notify the municipality in writing of its intent to raise an objection to the proposed zoning or rezoning of the property and shall specify the basis for the objection. If the county governing authority serves notice of its intent to object, then the county governing authority shall have ten calendar days from the date of the county's notice to document in writing the nature of the objection specifically identifying the basis for the objection including any increased service delivery or infrastructure costs. The absence of a written notice of intent to object or failure to document the nature of the objection shall mean the municipal corporation may proceed with the zoning or rezoning and no subsequent objections under this process may be filed for the zoning or rezoning under consideration.
    2. Commencing with the date of receipt by the municipality of the county's documented objections, representatives of the municipal corporation and the county shall have 21 calendar days to devise mitigating measures to address the county's specific objections to the proposed zoning or rezoning. The governing authority of the municipal corporation and the governing authority of the county may agree on mitigating measures or agree in writing to waive the objections at any time within the 21 calendar day period, in which event the municipal corporation may proceed with the zoning or rezoning in accordance with such agreement; or, where an initial zoning is proposed concurrent with annexation, the municipality may approve, deny, or abandon the annexation of all or parts of the property under review.
    3. If the representatives of the municipal corporation and the county fail to reach agreement on the objections and mitigating measures within the 21 calendar day period, either the governing authority of the municipal corporation or the governing authority of the county may insist upon appointment of a mediator within seven calendar days after the end of the 21 day period to assist in resolving the dispute. The mediator shall be mutually selected and appointed within seven calendar days of either party's timely, written insistence on a mediator. The party insisting on use of the mediator shall bear two-thirds of the expense of the mediation and the other party shall bear one-third of the expense of the mediation. If both the municipality and the county insist on mediation, the expenses of mediation shall be shared equally. The mediator shall have up to 28 calendar days to meet with the parties to develop alternatives to resolve the objections. If the municipal corporation and the county agree on alternatives to resolve the objections, the municipal corporation may proceed in accordance with the mediated agreement.
    4. If the objections are not resolved by the end of the 28 day period, the municipal governing authority or the county governing authority may, no later than seven calendar days after the conclusion of such 28 day period, request review by a citizen review panel. The citizen review panel shall be an independent body comprised of one resident of the municipal corporation appointed by the municipal governing authority, one resident of the county appointed by the county governing authority, and one nonresident of the county who is a land use planning professional mutually selected by the municipal and county appointees to the citizen review panel. No elected or appointed officials or employees, contractors, or vendors of a municipality or county may serve on the citizen review panel. If a request for review by a citizen review panel is made, the mediator shall make arrangements to appear personally at the first meeting of the panel and brief the panel members regarding the objections and proposed mitigating measures or provide a written presentation of such objections and proposed mitigating measures to the panel members on or before the date of such first meeting, whichever the mediator deems appropriate. The citizen review panel shall meet at least once but may conduct as many meetings as necessary to complete its review within a 21 calendar day period. All meetings of the citizen review panel shall be open to the public pursuant to Chapter 14 of Title 50. Within 21 calendar days of the request for review, the citizen review panel shall complete its review of the evidence submitted by the county and the municipality concerning the objections and proposed mitigating measures and shall issue its own recommendations.
    5. The citizen review panel shall recommend approval or denial of the zoning or rezoning and address the objections and proposed mitigating measures. Where an initial zoning is proposed concurrent with annexation, the panel may also recommend that the annexation be approved or abandoned. The findings and recommendations of the citizen review panel shall not be binding.
    6. Following receipt of the recommendations of the citizen review panel, the municipal corporation may:
      1. Zone or rezone all or parts of the property under review;
      2. Zone or rezone all or parts of the property under review with mitigating measures;
      3. Deny the zoning or rezoning of all or parts of the property under review; or
      4. Any combination of the foregoing.

        Where an initial zoning is proposed concurrent with annexation, the municipality may also approve, deny, or abandon the annexation of all or parts of the property under review.

    7. At any time during the process set forth in this Code section, the county or municipality may file a petition in superior court seeking sanctions against a party for any objections or proposed mitigating measures that lack substantial justification or that were interposed for purposes of delay or harassment. Such petition shall be assigned to a judge, pursuant to Code Section 15-1-9.1 or 15-6-13, who is not a judge in the circuit in which the county is located. The judge selected may also be a senior judge pursuant to Code Section 15-1-9.2 who resides in another circuit. The visiting or senior judge shall determine whether any objections or proposed mitigating measures lack substantial justification or were interposed for delay or harassment and shall assess against the party raising such objection or proposing or objecting to such mitigating measures the full cost of attorney fees and other costs incurred by the other party in responding to the objections or proposed mitigating measures.
    8. Unless otherwise agreed, a zoning or rezoning decision made pursuant to this Code section shall not be effective until 28 calendar days following the completion of the process authorized by this Code section and the zoning or rezoning vote by the municipal governing authority.
    9. During the process set forth in this Code section, the municipal corporation may proceed with notice, hearings, and other requirements for zoning or rezoning in accordance with the municipality's zoning ordinance.
  4. If the annexation, zoning, or rezoning is denied or abandoned based in whole or in part on the county's objections, the county shall not zone or rezone the property or allow any use of a similar or greater density or intensity to that proposed for the property which had been objected to by the county pursuant to this Code section for a one-year period after the denial or abandonment.
  5. The process set forth in subsection (c) of this Code section specifies minimum procedures for addressing objections. However, a county and a municipality may agree to additional procedures by resolution of the county and municipal governing authorities. Notwithstanding subsections (c) and (d) of this Code section, any agreement to resolve county objections to a proposed land use of an area to be annexed into a municipality which agreement was in effect on January 1, 2004, and which includes a provision whereby the county and a municipality agree to be bound by the recommendations of an annexation appeals board shall remain in effect until the parties agree otherwise.

(Code 1981, §36-36-11, enacted by Ga. L. 1998, p. 856, § 2; Ga. L. 2004, p. 69, § 18; Ga. L. 2007, p. 292, § 1/HB 2.)

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 2004, paragraphs (1) through (9) of subsection (b) were redesignated as subsection (c), subsections (c) and (d) were redesignated as subsections (d) and (e), and "calendar" was substituted for "calender" in paragraph (c)(1).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2004, p. 69, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'State and Local Taxation, Financing, and Service Delivery Revision Act of 2004.'"

Law reviews.

- For annual survey article on local government law, see 52 Mercer L. Rev. 341 (2000). For annual survey of zoning and land use law, see 57 Mercer L. Rev. 447 (2005) and 60 Mercer L. Rev. 457 (2008). For article on 2004 amendment of this Code section, see 21 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 226 (2004). For survey article on local government law, see 59 Mercer L. Rev. 285 (2007) and 60 Mercer L. Rev. 263 (2008).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

Cited in Baker v. City of Marietta, 271 Ga. 210, 518 S.E.2d 879 (1999); Higdon v. City of Senoia, 273 Ga. 83, 538 S.E.2d 39 (2000).

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 36-36-11

Total Results: 3  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

Baker v. City of Marietta, 518 S.E.2d 879 (Ga. 1999).

Cited 81 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jun 14, 1999 | 271 Ga. 210, 99 Fulton County D. Rep. 2226

...In a letter to the city's mayor, the chairman of the county commission objected to the proposed annexation/rezoning and requested that the land use dispute between the city and county be resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution process required by OCGA §§ 36-36-11 and 36-70-24....
...Asserting that the annexation was void because the bona fide land use objection raised by the county had not been resolved, the county asked the trial court for a judicial declaration of the rights and duties of the county and the city under OCGA §§ 36-70-24 and 36-36-11, and an injunction enjoining the city from annexing the property until all land use objections were resolved through a dispute resolution process....
...jection and no evidence on that ground had been presented to the court. The trial court dissolved the TRO and declined to enter the preliminary injunction the county had sought. The trial court then declared unconstitutional those portions of OCGA §§ 36-36-11 and 36-70-24(4)(C) which made up a statutory scheme described by the trial court as one in which a county could halt all municipal annexation by objecting; one which did not provide for judicial resolution of an impasse between the object...
...We agree with the Attorney General that the trial court should not have ruled on the petition for declaratory judgment after resolving the dispute between the city and county, and remand the case to the trial court with direction that its rulings on the constitutionality of OCGA §§ 36-36-11 and 36-70-24(4)(C) be vacated....
...he portion of the county's petition seeking a declaratory judgment. 2. In its cross-appeal, the city takes issue with the trial court's failure to rule in the city's favor on the city's other attacks, constitutional and non-constitutional, on OCGA §§ 36-36-11 and 36-70-24(4)(C)....
...the trial court upheld the statutes against the city's other attacks, those rulings must also be vacated under the rationale set forth in Division 1. Judgment vacated in part and case remanded with direction. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] OCGA § 36-36-11(a), enacted by the 1998 Georgia General Assembly, defined "bona fide land use classification objection" as "an objection to a proposed change in land use which results in a substantial change in the intensity of the allowable use of the p...
...ly, provides: "A process shall be established by July 1, 1998, to resolve land use classification disputes when a county objects to the proposed land use of an area to be annexed into a municipality within the county." [2] The city alleged that OCGA § 36-36-11 and 36-70-24(4)(C) violated Art....
...Copies of the pertinent pages of the hearings' transcripts were attached to and made a part of the final order. [4] See Footnote 2, supra. [5] With the un-appealed denial of the county's petition for injunctive relief and the un-appealed ruling that the county had not correctly invoked OCGA § 36-36-11 which makes the effectiveness of a municipality's annexation contingent upon the resolution of a county's bona fide land use classification objection, it appears that the annexation has taken place and the annexed land re-zoned by the cit...
Copy

Higdon v. City of Senoia, 538 S.E.2d 39 (Ga. 2000).

Cited 33 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 30, 2000 | 273 Ga. 83, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 4020

...Haynie, Litchfield & Crane, Douglas P. Haynie, Emilie K. Petrovich, Marietta, James F. Grubiak, Kelly J. Pridgen, Atlanta, for amici curiae. THOMPSON, Justice. In these companion cases we are called upon to resolve whether OCGA §§ 36-70-24(4)(C) and 36-36-11 violate the delegation of zoning power under Art....
...t of annexation. It requires that "[a] process shall be established by July 1, 1998, to resolve land use classification disputes when a county objects to the proposed land use of an area to be annexed into a municipality within the county." Id. OCGA § 36-36-11(a) defines a "bona fide land use classification *41 objection" as an objection to a proposed change in land use which "results in a substantial change in the intensity of the allowable use of the property or a change to a significantly different allowable use." OCGA § 36-36-11(b) provides that an annexation is not effective until any bona fide land use classification objections raised by the county relative to the area to be annexed are resolved pursuant to the dispute resolution process required by OCGA § 36-70-24(4)(C)....
...e a mediation process. When, despite suggestions from both parties, they were unable to agree upon a mediator, the City of Senoia filed this action for declaratory judgment in which it challenged the constitutionality of OCGA §§ 36-70-24(4)(C) and 36-36-11. Jim Higdon, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the Georgia Department of Community Affairs, was granted leave to intervene as a defendant. The trial judge declared OCGA §§ 36-36-11 and 36-70-24(4)(C) unconstitutional in violation of Art....
...The constitutional challenge was properly raised and ruled on below as to invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. See generally Blackston v. Dept. of Natural Resources, 255 Ga. 15(1), 334 S.E.2d 679 (1985). 3. In deciding whether OCGA §§ 36-36-11 and 36-70-24(4)(C) violate Art....
...power of annexation. One such condition to a proposed annexation by a municipal government requires that any bona fide land use classification objections between local governments be resolved prior to allowing an annexation to become effective. OCGA § 36-36-11....
...as well as other statutes and decisions of the courts. Plantation Pipe Line, supra. In this case, we are guided by the legislative statements of intent. In OCGA § 36-36-10, the General Assembly explained the governmental interest furthered by OCGA § 36-36-11: It is the express intent of the General Assembly in enacting the provisions of this chapter to provide for alternative methods for annexing or deannexing an area or areas into or from the corporate limits of a municipality....
...We decline to reject the legislative objectives in this case. It is clear that the statutes under consideration concern annexation procedures over which the General Assembly retains power. Plantation Pipe Line, supra. The prescriptions set out in OCGA §§ 36-36-11 and 36-70-24(4)(C) create a process for attempting to resolve disputes concerning annexation....
...See also O S Advertising Co. of Ga. v. Rubin, 263 Ga. 761, 438 S.E.2d 907 (1994) (municipality has power to zone and restrict use of land within its boundaries), overruled on other grounds, Ashkouti v. City of Suwanee, 271 Ga. 154, 516 S.E.2d 785 (1999). Therefore, OCGA § 36-36-11 does not unconstitutionally infringe on a municipality's zoning rights....
...Judgment affirmed in Case No. S00A1103. Judgment reversed in Case No. S00A1104. All the Justices concur. CARLEY, Justice, concurring. I can concur in the majority's opinion in captioned cases because the Court's only constitutional holding is that OCGA §§ 36-70-24(4)(C) and 36-36-11 do not violate Article IX, Section II, Paragraph IV of the 1983 Georgia Constitution....
Copy

Fulton Cnty. v. City of Atlanta, 299 Ga. 676 (Ga. 2016).

Cited 26 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Oct 3, 2016 | 791 S.E.2d 821

...Indeed, Higdon involved a statutory scheme that required a municipality to submit to a dispute resolution process upon the county lodging a “bona fide land use classification objection” to a proposed annexation. See 273 Ga. at 83-84. See also former OCGA §§ 36-36-11 (Ga....
...failed to make the required objection to the proposed annexation and land use.” 273 Ga. at 85 (1). As in Baker, the County in this case did not make a land use classification objection that would trigger immediate legal consequences. Current OCGA § 36-36-11 (a) provides that land use disputes related to annexation are governed by Article 7, OCGA § 36-36-110 et seq....
...e 7 is limited to land use disputes, particularly regarding the City’s intended post-annexation zoning, and that the County had never asserted a land use objection and could not do so because the City did not propose to change the zoning. See OCGA § 36-36-113 (specifying what is a valid objection under Article 7, when it should be made, and what documentation is required)....