O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 (2019)

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 ordi-

nance 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 Superseded portions of ordinances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36-66-1 et seq., or the cases interpreting that law, that conditions validity of a zoning ordinance on the retention of superseded portions of the ordinance.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 ex-

ploitation of oil and gas, including hydrofracking, 84 A.L.R.6th 133.