Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/01/1995

Home

· ' Z.B. July 1995 -- Page 7 attorney was Johnson, whose associate was the son of County Commissioner Cooper. In early 1991, the county Planning Commission recommended rejecting the application, which the county Board of Commissioners did because of a technical problem. The board let Dick and Allman file an amended applica- tion, but that too was rejected. Comm/ssioner Cooper's son attended one meeting in 1991. He did no legal work regarding the application, and he attended the meeting only to further his education 'as an attorney. He did concede, though, that his attendance at the meeting created an attorney-client relationshiP with Dick and Allman. In October 1991, Dick and Allman sued the county. In January 1992, Johnson and Commissioner Cooper's son formed a law partnership. However, the partnership did not handle zoning matters involving Cobb County. Instead, Johnson handled those matters through a separate law firm. Cooper's son got none of those fees, which were deposited in a separate account. However, two pieces of correspondence regarding Dick and Allman's application were sent on Johnson & Cooper stationery. In November 1992, the board voted to reconsider Dick and Allman's appli- cation. At a public hearing, one of the commissioners moved to hold the appli- cation, but Commissioner Cooper made a substitute motion to approve it. The board then approved the application by a 3-2 vote. Dick and Allman dismissed their lawsuit against the county. Williams, an opponent of the rezoning application, sued, asking a court to set aside the approval and stop its implementation. Williams said that under the county ethics code, Commissioner Cooper should not have participated in the vote because his son had a professional relationship with Johnson. The court declared the rezoning approval void, ordered Dick and Allman not to proceed with anything they could do because of the rezoning, and sent the application back to the board for reconsideration. During reconsideration, Commissioner Cooper was not to participate. Dick and Allman appealed, arguing the decision should not have been reversed. They claimed there was no conflict of interest because Commissioner Cooper's son did not participate in the proceedings or receive any benefit from them. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly set aside the rezoning approval and forbade Com- missioner Cooper from participating in any future board activity regarding the property. The county Ethics Code prohibited even the appearance of any improper influence. Even though Commissioner Cooper's son had no mone-. tary interest in the rezoning, the commissioner's participation in the decision created the appearance of impropriety because of the professional relationship Johnson had with Cooper's son. Clear-Vu Cable v. Town of Trion, 262 S.E. 2d 73 (1979).