O.C.G.A.
Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.
Statute text
This chapter shall be known and may be cited as "The Zoning Procedures Law."
History
(Code 1981, § 36-66-1, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1139, § 1.)
Annotations
Law reviews. - For article, "Local Government Law," see 53 Mercer L. Rev. 389 (2001). For article, "Local Government Litigation: Some Pivotal Principles," see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2003). For survey article on local government law for the period from June 1, 2002 to May 31, 2003, see 55 Mercer L. Rev. 353 (2003). For annual survey of administrative law, see 56 Mercer L. Rev. 31 (2004). For annual survey of local government law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 267 (2006). For annual survey on zoning and land use law, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 301 (2018).
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Failure to address constitutional issue on part of trial court. - Trial court erred by failing to address whether a 1993 county zoning ordinance was constitutional because the record established that the landfill permit applicant raised a constitutional challenge to the zoning ordinance before the trial court in its response to the challengers' motion for partial summary judgment and, in fact, in its transfer order to the appellate court, the trial court specifically stated that the court did not rule on the applicant's constitutional argument. Southern States-Bartow County, Inc. v. Riverwood Farm Prop. Owners Ass'n, Inc., 331 Ga. App. 878, 769 S.E.2d 823 (2015).
Zoning ordinance properly enacted. - Evidence was sufficient to establish that the enactment of a county's zoning ordinance complied with the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq., when the board of commissioners adopted the zoning ordinance after the ordinance was read, a public meeting was held, changes to the proposed ordinance were made, and another public hearing was held at which the zoning map was available, and amendments to the zoning ordinance were approved pursuant to the zoning administrator's recommendations, a public meeting was held on the amendments, and the board then adopted the amendments without change. Mid-Georgia Envtl. Mgmt. Group, L.L.L.P. v. Meriwether County, 277 Ga. 670, 594 S.E.2d 344 (2004).
Superseded portions of ordinances need not be kept. - There is nothing in the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq., or the cases interpreting that law, that conditions validity of a zoning ordinance on the retention of superseded portions of the ordinance. Mid-Georgia Envtl. Mgmt. Group, L.L.L.P. v. Meriwether County, 277 Ga. 670, 594 S.E.2d 344 (2004).
Claim was time-barred. - Owner's failure to appeal the rezoning of a neighbor's property precluded the owner from attacking the rezoning decision under Spalding County, Ga., Unified Development Ordinance § 418 and O.C.G.A. § 5-3-20; a claim that Spalding County, Ga., Unified Development Ordinance § 414 did not comply with the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq., was also time-barred as any challenge to the rezoning had to be raised within 30 days. Hollberg v. Spalding County, 281 Ga. App. 768, 637 S.E.2d 163 (2006).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR. - Validity of zoning regulations prohibiting or regulating removal or exploitation of oil and gas, including hydrofracking, 84 A.L.R.6th 133.
Notes of Decisions
Tilley Props., Inc. v. Bartow Cnty., 401 S.E.2d 527 (Ga. 1991).
· cites it 8× “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…”
Shelley v. Town of Tyrone, 806 S.E.2d 535 (Ga. 2017).
· cites it 2× “He alleged *302 generally that all zoning ordinances passed since 1977 are facially void because of the[ir] defective adoption and content” and more specifically that Ordinance 2011-13 was void because it was adopted without compliance with Georgia’s Zoning Procedures Law (ZPL),…”
Stendahl v. Cobb Cnty., 668 S.E.2d 723 (Ga. 2008).
· cites it 2× “94, 95 ( 401 SE2d 513 ) (1991) (Zoning Procedures Law, OCGA § 36-66-1 et seq., does not grant local governments the right to create direct appeal of zoning decisions to superior court).”
Greater Atlanta Homebuilders Ass'n v. DeKalb Cnty., 588 S.E.2d 694 (Ga. 2003).
· cites it 4× “Appellants contend that the Tree Ordinance and its four amendments are invalid because they were not enacted in accordance with the Zoning Procedures Law, OCGA § 36-66-1, et seq., which imposes minimum due process standards upon local *696 governments when they adopt or amend…”
Rockdale Cnty.. v. U. S. Enter., Inc.; & Vice Versa, 312 Ga. 752 (Ga. 2021).
· cites it 2× “to equal protection, and that the UDO was invalid because it was not adopted in compliance with The Zoning Procedures Law, see OCGA § 36-66-1 et seq., and because it was not attached to or incorporated by reference in the minutes of the meeting at which it was adopted.”
McClure v. Davidson, 373 S.E.2d 617 (Ga. 1988).
· cites it 4× “The appeal involves, inter alia, the issues of the standing of neighboring property owners to challenge the rezoning of the subject property, the applicability of the doctrines of laches and vested rights in the zoning context, and the applicability of the Zoning Procedures Act,…”
City of Roswell v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 549 S.E.2d 90 (Ga. 2001).
· cites it 4× “In this case, the trial court held that the City's moratorium on the implementation of its then-existing sign ordinance was a "zoning decision" within the meaning of OCGA § 36-66-3(4) and, thus, was subject to the requirements of the Zoning Procedures Law (ZPL), OCGA § 36-66-1…”
Walton Cnty. v. Scenic Hills Estates, Inc., 401 S.E.2d 513 (Ga. 1991).
· cites it 8× “Laws 1139 (codified at OCGA §§ 36-66-1 to -5) can create a mechanism for the direct appeal of zoning decision, rather than de novo, within the meaning of City of Savannah v.”
East Georgia Land & Dev. Co. v. Baker, 690 S.E.2d 145 (Ga. 2010).
· cites it 2× “EGL urges that application of the Act in this case violates the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers and, for similar reasons, the Zoning Procedures Law (ZPL), OCGA § 36-66-1 et seq. EGL argues that the copy established by the superior court is not the exact ordinance…”
Hollberg v. Spalding Cnty., 637 S.E.2d 163 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 2× “on to approve the special exception; that Sinclair had not demonstrated compliance with the substantial interest-aggrieved citizen test, so that he lacked standing to challenge the Board’s approval of the special exception; and that Sinclair had not shown that the ordinance and…”
Tanner Advert. Grp., L.L.C. v. Fayette Cnty., 451 F.3d 777 (11th Cir. 2006).
“The owners argued that “the [agricultural] zoning ordinance is null and void because it was not enacted in compliance with the Zoning Procedures Law (ZPL), O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq.” Id. “The Georgia Supreme Court concluded that at the time the property owner applied for its…”
— 36-66-1(b) — 2 cases
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.