Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

n ""-'-..> o Ii ( II I' II Ii I I I ,I Ii () ~/ Zoning Bulletin November 25, 20091 Volume 31 No. 22 Immediately after that hearing, four Board commissioners and the county's zoning administrator met with the county .attorney to dis- cuss the Court's decision (the "Conference"). Ingram was also pres- ent at the Conference. Subsequently, GRAAL and Ingram filed a new zoning applica- tion with the county. Public hearings on the zoning application l were held before the county planning commission and the Board on November 17 and 18, respectively. Eventually, the Board ap- proved the rezoning request. . Vincent Gumz and Jim Cosset, residents bf the county (the "Resi- dents"), then filed a complaint against the Board, four Board com- missioners, GRAAL and Ingram (collectively, "the county defen- dants"). The Residents contended that the Conference constituted a "meeting" reqUired to be open to the public under Georgia's Open Meetings Act (the "Act") (OCGA ~ 50-14-1). The Act defined "meet- ing" as: "the gathering of a quorum of the members of the govern- ing body of an agency ... pursuant to schedule, call, or notice of or from such governing body or committee or an authorized member, at a designated time and place at which any public matter, official business, or policy of the agency is to be discussed or presented or at which official action is to be taken." Under the Act such "meetings" were required to be "open to the public." Any "official action" taken at a "meeting" not open to the public would not be "binding." Because the Conference was not open to the public, the Resi- dents argued that "all action" taken at the Conference must be in- validated. They further argued that the rezoning of the Land must also be invalidated. Finding the Conference was not a "meeting" under the Act, the trial court ruled in favor of the county defendants. The Residents appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Georgia concluded that the Conference was not a "meeting" under the Act. The court explained that for a meeting to fall under the Act, it must: (1) be "one of a "governing body of an agency' or any commit- tee thereof"; and (2) be "one 'at which official business or policy of the agency is to be discussed or at which official action is to be tak- en.''' The court found that the Act applied to the Board. It also found that the presence of four of five of the county Commissioners at the Conference constituted a quorum. However, it determined that the Conference was not a "meeting" under the Act because: (1) it was not "held 'pursuant to schedule, call or notice... at a designated time and place"'; and (2) "significantly, that no 'official action' was taken at the [Conference]." @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 3 43