Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/01/1996

Home

Z.B. ~ September 1996-- Page 7 [ Board !m Objector says board's wo~ds and deeds violated open meetings law Be~k v. Crisp County Zoning Board of Apt~eals, 472 S.E.2d 558 (GJorgia) 1996 Mc.Kay owned 1,200 acres in Crisp County, Ga. He asked for a condi- tional-use permit to put an airstrip on his land. The county Zoning Board of Appeals publicized that it would have a meet- ing on a specified dat~. Its agenda for that day stated it would hold a hearing on another permit request, then "Adjourn Public Hearing." It would next have a hearing on McKay's request, and "Adjourn Public Hearing." Finally, the board would vote on the two requests and address other board business. After the hearing on the first request, the board's chairperson said, "This closes the public hearing portion on Mr. Johnson's request. We will be voting on it a little later and Mr. McKnight will be in touch with you." Many audience members left. Theboard then had the hearing on McKay's request. Beck opposed it. Af- terward} the chairperson said, "At this time we adjourn the public hearing of this mat~ter, and the decision of the board will be available from Mr. McKnight this afternoon." The rest of the audience left, the chairperson closed the doors, and the board proceeded to finish its agenda. The rboard granted McKay's permit. Beck appealed to court, claiming the board's decision violated the state Open M_'eetings Act (Act). According to Beck, the entire meeting should have been public and the board shouldn't have continued after the audience left. The board said when it closed the "public hearing" part of its meeting, it didn't close the meeting to the public. The board claimed members of the public fre- quently left after that part of the meeting to get home or to work, but were welcome to stay. The court found Beck did not prove the board violated the Act. Beck appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The lower court improPerly held that Beck did not prove the board violated the Act. Its judgment was reversed, and the board's decision on McKay's per- mit became void. The board's actions strongly suggested it wanted the public to leave after it took evidence. The board's agenda should not have limited which parts of the meeting it called "public." Not only should the whole meeting have been cal'led public, but the parts to which the agenda referred as such were really the "evidentiary" parts of the meeting. Also, the board's chairperson unnecessarily announced that the hearings were adjourned; he should have used the word "concluded." Further, he did not say exactly when the other agenda items would occur, did not tell the audience it could stay for the rest of those items, and closed the doors when the audience left. His statements that the audience could get the decisions later implied they could not stay to find out the results. Atlanta Journal v. Hill, 359 S.E.2d 913 (1987). '77