Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/1997

Home

Z.B. - February 10, 1997 Page 5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I and the developer, and though much of the opposition involved property values, the evidence did not show traffic concerns masked the true reasons for turning down the project. see also: Noojin v. Mobile City t>lam~£ng Commission, 480 So.2d 587 (1985). see also: Smith v. City of Mobile, 374 So. 2d 305 (1979). Landfill -- Company says going before planning commission would be futile Citation: City of Albany v. Oxford Solid Waste Landfill Inc., 476 S.E. 2d 729 (Georgia) 1996 Oxford Solid Waste wanted to open an inert landfill in Albany, Ga. (Inert landfills handle only earth and earth-like materials, such as tree limbs, yard waste, rocks and bricks.) Under the city's zoning ordinance, Oxford had t° get a land disturbance permit from the city engineer. A city ordinance required the engineer to issue or deny the land disturbance permit within 45 days of an application. The zoning ordinance stated the use of land for "filling or depositing of any type of earth material, topsoil, gravel, rock, garbage, rubbish, or other wastes or by-products, is not permitted in any zoning district except under a certificate from [the building department] in accordance with a topographic plan, approved by the engineering department." The city attorney told Oxford landfills were allowed if the operator first got a certificate from the building department, approval from the city engineer and a permit from the state. Oxford bought 20 acres of property, hired engineers and lawyers, and submitted plans to the city. The city engineer told the planning commission the application met the engineering requirements for a disturbance permit. About three months later, the city commission passed a moratorium prohibiting for 60 days issuance of landfill permits. Oxford asked a court to force the city engineer to issue a decision on its application for a disturbance permit. The day before the court hearing, the engineer denied the permit. The court subsequently concluded the engineer rejected the application at the instruction of the city manager, who had been instructed by the city planning commission. The court ordered the city to issue the land disturbance permit. The city appealed, arguing that before a court could review the engineer's decision, Oxford first had to appeal to the city planning commission. The city also claimed the zoning ordinance did not allow landfills. DECISION: Affirmed. Oxford did'not have to appeal to the planning commission before going to court, and the ordinance allowed landfills. The Court properly ordered the city to issue the land disturbance permit even though Oxford did not exhaust its administrative remedies. It was "obvious" that it would have been futile for Oxford to go before the planning commission.