Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/06/2018

Home

July 25, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 14 Zoning Bulletin The Supreme Court of Georgia then issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed. Agreeing with the Neighbors, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that because the January Board meeting was "too attenuated in time or circum- stances" from the Planning Commission's October decision, it did not afford interested citizens a meaningful opportunity to be heard by the Board on the peiiiut application, and therefore another hearing was required for the Board's January 2016 meeting in order to satisfy the notice -and -hearing requirements of the ZPL. In so holding, the court agreed with the Board that "a hearing is not required at every stage of the process that leads up to a zoning decision," and "what the statute requires is one hearing during the continuous course of a zoning matter fore the local government." Nevertheless, the court found that only one hear- ing in this case was insufficient to afford the Neighbors a meaningful op- portunity to be heard on the permit application. The court said this was because: the Planning Commission had no authority to make a final zoning de- cision; and although the Planning Commission could make recommendations to the Board, here there was not an adequate record of the hearing before the Planning Commission made and transmitted to the Board —such that the final zoning decision of the Board could be said to have been meaningfully informed by what happened at the Planning Commission's hearing. Rather, the Board received only a one -page memorandum about the Planning Com- mission's October hearing, which noted "considerable objections from the surrounding neighbors in attendance," but "fail[ed] to disclose even the gen- eral nature of those `considerable objections.' " The court could not find how the memorandum informed the Board in a "meaningful way" of what hap- pened at the hearing. Accordingly, the court concluded that it could not find that the hearing before the Planning Commission afforded interested citizens a meaningful opportunity to be head by the Board on the Tatums' permit application. Thus, the court concluded that the October 2015 hearing did not satisfy the notice -and -hearing requirements of the ZPL. See also: City of Roswell v. Outdoor Systems, Inc., 274 Ga. 130, 549 S.E.2d 90 (2001). 6 ©2018 Thomson Reuters