Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation
Call Now: 904-383-7448Both the posted notice and the published notice shall include a prominent statement that the proposed zoning decision relates to or will allow the location or relocation of a halfway house, drug rehabilitation center, or other facility for treatment of drug dependency. The published notice shall be at least six column inches in size and shall not be located in the classified advertising section of the newspaper.
(Code 1981, §36-66-4, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1139, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1009, § 2; Ga. L. 1998, p. 856, § 3; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1392, § 1; Ga. L. 2004, p. 69, § 19; Ga. L. 2012, p. 775, § 36/HB 942.)
The 2012 amendment, effective May 1, 2012, part of an Act to revise, modernize, and correct the Code, substituted "subsection (c)" for "subsection (b)" in subparagraph (d)(4)(C), and revised punctuation in the introductory paragraph of subsection (e).
- 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.'"
- For article surveying real property law in 1984-1985, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 343 (1985). For article on 2004 amendment of this Code section, see 21 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 226 (2004). For annual survey on zoning and land use law, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 427 (2009). For annual survey on real property, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 251 (2017). For annual survey on zoning and land use law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 371 (2017).
- Procedures described in subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 must be followed when passing or rescinding a text amendment of general application. Atlanta Bio-Med, Inc. v. DeKalb County, 261 Ga. 594, 408 S.E.2d 100 (1991).
- Text amendment having general application is not a "rezoning decision" for purposes of the procedures required under subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4. Atlanta Bio-Med, Inc. v. DeKalb County, 261 Ga. 594, 408 S.E.2d 100 (1991).
Although O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 requires only one hearing during the continuous course of a zoning matter before the local government, when a court found a first zoning decision unconstitutional and remanded the matter with direction to rezone, the zoning authority was required to hold a hearing. City of Cumming v. Realty Dev. Corp., 268 Ga. 461, 491 S.E.2d 60 (1997).
Adult ordinance was not a "zoning ordinance" even though the ordinance placed certain limitations on locations available to an adult business and established certain minimum lot sizes and road frontages; rather than regulating general uses of land, the adult ordinance regulated a particular type of activity - adult entertainment; as such, it was not a zoning ordinance and was not subject to the hearing requirements established under the Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq. Artistic Entm't, Inc. v. City of Warner Robins, 331 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 988, 124 S. Ct. 2017, 158 L. Ed. 2d 491 (2004).
- County's failure to comply with the notice provisions of subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 invalidated the subject zoning action. McClure v. Davidson, 258 Ga. 706, 373 S.E.2d 617 (1988).
Since a real estate developer had neither concluded the purchase of property or made substantial expenditures in reliance upon the probable issuance of a building permit until after the county amended the county's zoning ordinance to the detriment of the developer, the developer did not acquire a vested right to develop the property in question in conformity with the old ordinance; the county board of commissioner's letter to the developer amounted to an agreement to amend the ordinance and, thus, invoked the notice and hearing requirements under Georgia's Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq. Buckner v. Douglas County, 273 Ga. App. 765, 615 S.E.2d 850 (2005).
As a county's notice of the public hearing on a neighbor's request for a conditional use permit failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4(a) because the notice was published 46, not 45, days before the hearing, the county's approval of the neighbor's request was invalid. C & H Dev., LLC v. Franklin County, 294 Ga. App. 792, 670 S.E.2d 491 (2008).
When property owners sought a conditional use permit for special events on their property, and the county planning commission published notice of a hearing that complied with O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4(a), then recommended granting the permit, the county board of commissioners' vote to grant the permit three months later did not require additional notice. Hoechstetter v. Pickens County, 341 Ga. App. 213, 799 S.E.2d 352 (2017).
- Hearing before the Planning Commission did not satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq., because the only record of the hearing was a one-page memorandum disclosing that the Commission heard testimony from the applicant and considerable objections from the surrounding neighborhood, but the memorandum did not disclose the nature of the objections and, thus, did not inform the County Board of Commissioners in a meaningful way of what happened at the hearing. Hoechstetter v. Pickens County, 303 Ga. 786, 815 S.E.2d 50 (2018).
- Defendants attempt to annex certain properties into the corporate limits of the city and establish a new zoning district was voided because the procedural requirements of O.C.G.A § 36-36-21 and subsections (a) and (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 were not met. City of Byron v. Betancourt, 242 Ga. App. 71, 528 S.E.2d 841 (2000).
- Procedures described in subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 and former O.C.G.A. § 36-67-5 did not apply to the enactment of a zoning ordinance text amendment that allowed a new permitted use. Atlanta Bio-Med, Inc. v. DeKalb County, 261 Ga. 594, 408 S.E.2d 100 (1991).
- County zoning ordinance properly incorporated by reference an official zoning map as the board of commissioners had a zoning map before the commissioners when the commissioners considered the ordinance, the zoning map was in existence when a limited liability limited partnership (LLLP) bought the property and that map was kept in the zoning administrator's office, the new zoning administrator's uncertainty about which of two maps was the official map did not render the entire zoning ordinance invalid, and it was clear that 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).
- Trial court did not err in granting the city's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the plaintiffs' procedural due process claims as Georgia's Zoning Procedures Law (ZPL), O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq., provided the plaintiffs with an adequate state remedy for alleged procedural irregularities committed by the city in the adoption of a new zoning ordinance because the ZPL required local governments to provide property owners with a meaningful opportunity to be heard before enacting a zoning ordinance, not simply mere notice of a hearing, as the ZPL required that a local government conduct a public hearing on a proposed zoning ordinance before its adoption; and, if no public hearing was held, aggrieved property owners could sue to have the ordinance declared invalid. Schumacher v. City of Roswell, 344 Ga. App. 135, 809 S.E.2d 262 (2017).
Cited in City of Roswell v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 274 Ga. 130, 549 S.E.2d 90 (2001); Edwards v. City of Warner Robins, 302 Ga. 381, 807 S.E.2d 438 (2017).
- Tie vote on consideration of a zoning proposal by a county board was not a "defeat" of the proposal so as to bar the proposal's reconsideration within six months. 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U96-16.
Total Results: 10
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2018-06-04
Citation: 815 S.E.2d 50
Snippet: and publish notice of that hearing. See OCGA § 36-66-4 (a).2 In August 2015, Doug and Lynda Tatum applied
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2017-10-30
Citation: 302 Ga. 381, 807 S.E.2d 438
Snippet: enacting Ordinances 27-08 and 12-94. See OCGA § 36-66-4 (requiring that the local government provide for
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2004-03-22
Citation: 594 S.E.2d 344, 277 Ga. 670, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 1006, 2004 Ga. LEXIS 264
Snippet: (267 SE2d 234) (1980). OCGA §§ 36-66-3 (5), 36-66-4. See Friedman v. Goodman, 219 Ga. 152,159 (132
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 2001-07-02
Citation: 549 S.E.2d 90, 274 Ga. 130, 2001 Fulton County D. Rep. 2061, 2001 Ga. LEXIS 537
Snippet: to comply with the notice provisions of OCGA § 36-66-4 (a) of the Zoning Procedures Law. Because the city’s
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1997-10-06
Citation: 491 S.E.2d 60, 268 Ga. 461, 97 Fulton County D. Rep. 3685, 1997 Ga. LEXIS 632
Snippet: for rezoning. The Zoning Procedures Law, OCGA § 36-66-4 (a), states plainly that “[a] local government
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1991-09-06
Citation: 408 S.E.2d 100, 261 Ga. 594, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 398
Snippet: that the zoning procedures set forth in OCGA § 36-66-4(a) apply to both the passage and rescission of
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1991-03-15
Citation: 401 S.E.2d 527, 261 Ga. 153, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 130
Snippet: published notice satisfied the requirements of OCGA § 36-66-4 (a). (c) The parties have stipulated that while
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1989-12-05
Citation: 386 S.E.2d 358, 259 Ga. 673, 1989 Ga. LEXIS 520
Snippet: requirements of the Zoning Procedures Law. OCGA § 36-66-4. The court ruled in favor of the appellants regarding
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1988-11-23
Citation: 373 S.E.2d 617, 258 Ga. 706, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 494
Snippet: contended that the notice requirement of OCGA § 36-66-4 (a), a provision of the Zoning Procedures Act,
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia | Date Filed: 1988-01-06
Citation: 257 Ga. 722, 363 S.E.2d 251, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 8
Snippet: entitled to notice of the consent order under OCGA § 36-66-4. Since we find no merit in any of the neighbors’