M o re sp e c if ica lly , E a st G e o rg ia su e d N e w to n C o u n ty , it s z o n in g a d m in istra to r, it s 1 comm i s s i oner s , and i t s B oar d of Zoni ng A ppeal s . For t he purpos es of t hi s appea l , w e have n o n e e d t o d i s t i n g u i s h b e t we e n t h e v a r i o u s d e f e n d a n t s , a n d s o , f

o r t h e s a k e o f

s i mp l i c i t y , we ref er to the d ef

en d an ts co ll ec ti v ely as t h e “C o u n ty
. ” B y the w ay , this ap p ea l m ark s the thir d appea r ance of t hi s di s put e i n our C our t
. For m or e i nfor m at i on about t he ci r cumst ance s t hat l ed t o t he di s put e and e ar l i er and r el at ed pr ocee di ngs , s ee our deci s i ons i n E as t G eor gi a Land & D ev. C o. v. B aker , 286 G a. 551 ( 690 SE 2d 145) ( 2010) , and East G eor gi a Land & D ev. C o . v . N e w to n C o u n ty, 2 9 0 G a . 7 3 2 (7 2 3 S E 2 d 9 0 9 ) ( 2 0 1 2 ). In the Suprem e Court of Ge orgia

D e c id e d: O c to be r 2 0, 201 4

S14A10 49. NE WTO N C OUN TY e t a l. v. E AST G EO RG IA L AND

AND DEVELOP MENT COMP ANY, LLC.

B LA C KW E LL , Ju st ice. E a st G e org ia L and and D e ve lo pm e ntC om pany, LLC sue d N e w to n County a nd seve ral of its office rs for a w rit of m andam us, c ontending that a 1

zon in g or di nan ce ado pt ed by th e Co un ty on May 21 , 19 85 is i nv alid . The tr ial

c ourt a gre e d that the z oni ng o rdi nanc e is in va li d, it aw arde d sum m aryju dgm e nt t o Eas tGeo r g i a, an dth e Co u n t y ap p eal s . W e f i n dn o err o r

an daf f i rm. T he z oni ng o rdi nanc e a t i ss ue re fe rs to — a nd p urp ort s t o i nc orp orate by

re fe re nc e — a

se t o f m a

ps i de nt if ie d i n the or di nanc e a s the “O fficia l Z oni ng D is tr ic t M a

ps f or N e w to n C ounty.” The se m a ps a re an i nt e gra l p art

of th eT he C ounty arg u es tha t i t had adopt ed s om e maps i n 1971 i n connec t i on w i t h an 2 ear l i er zoni ng or di nance , and t he 1971 maps w er e i n exi s t ence on M ay 21, 1985, w hen t he Co u n t y e n a c t e d t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e a t i s s u e . T h e p r o b l e m i s , n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d s h o ws th a t th e 1 9 7 1 m a p s w e re d e s ig n a te d a s “ O f f ic ia l Z o n in g D is tr ic t M a p s f o r N e w to n C o u n ty,” t he des i gnat i on by w hi ch t he 1985 ordina n ce i dent i fi es t he maps i ncor por at ed t her ei n. A ccor di ngl y , t he r ecor d fai l s t o s how t hat t he 19 7 1 m aps ar e t he s ame m aps t hat t he 1985 or di nance purpo rt s t o i ncor por at e by r efe r ence . See East G eor gi a Land & D ev. C o. v. N ew t on C ount y , 290 G a. 732, 737- 738 ( 2) ( 723 SE 2d 909) ( 20 1 2 ). A n d i n any event , no or i gi nal or cer t i fi ed copyof t he 1971 maps a ppear s i n t he r ecor d, and an or di nance onl y can 2 z oni ng o rdi nanc e . T he or di nanc e id e nt if ie s the lands to w hi c h i ts vari ous z oni ng
c la ss if ic a ti ons a ppl yonl ybyre fe re nc e to th e m a ps, and w ithout

th e m a ps, th e zoning ordinance would be too i ndefinite and vague to sati sfy the re quirem ents of due pro c e ss . Se e H ul se y v. Sm ith, 224 G a . 783, 783 (1 64 S E 2d 7 82) (1 968) ; C ityof Way c ros s v. B oatr ig ht , 104 G a . A pp. 685, 687- 688 (2) (1 22 S E 2d 4 75) (19 61)

. Se e a ls o C ity of Flo vi ll a v. Mc E lh e ne y , 246 G a . 552 , 552 (1 ) ( 272 SE 2d 287) (1 980) ; C ity C ounc il of A ugus ta v. Irvi n, 109 G a . A pp. 598, 600 (1) (1 37 S E 2 d 8 2) (1 96 4) . The Cou nt y do es n ot di sp ut e thatth e m aps are an ess ent ial par t o f th e or di nan ce. T he onl ysuc h m a

ps th a t a ppe ar in th e re c ord , how e ve r, w e re a dopt e d by th e C ountyon Jul y2, 198 5, and n othi ng i n the re c ord sho ws th at those m a

ps
e ve n w e re in e xi st e nc e on May 21, 1985 , w he n the C ountye na c te d the z oni ng
or di nanc e . A s w e e xpl a in e d w he n th is c a se la st a ppe are d in our C ourt, fo r an 2be pr oved o n ly b y “pr oduct i on of t he or i gi nal or of a pr oper l y cer t i fi ed copy

. ” Thors en v.

Saber , 288 G a. 18, 19 ( 1) ( 701 SE 2d 133) ( 2010) ( ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. Fi nal l y , even i f t he 1971 m a p s w e re sh o w n to b e a r th e re lev a n t d e sig n a tio n , a n d e v e n if th e 1 9 7 1 m a p s w e re p ro p e rly aut hent i cat ed, t he 1971 maps a r e i ncons i s t ent i n s ever al r es pect s w i t h t he 1985 or di nance — t he 1971 m aps , for i ns t ance , des i gnat e a di ffe r ent num ber of di s t r i ct s t han ar e i ndi cat ed by t he 1985 or di nance — and for t hat r eas on as w el l , t he 1971 maps c l ear l y ar e not t he maps t hat t he C ount y m eant t o i ncor por at e by r efe r ence w hen i t enac t ed t he 1985 or di nance . T he 1 9 7 1 m ap s “m ay h av e reflec ted th e z o n ing that ex ist ed b ef o re [ M ay 2 1 , 1 9 8 5 ], b u t t h ey are n o t p a rt o f

th e [ 1 9 8 5 z o n in g o rd in a n c e ], an d a re n o t p ro b a tiv e o f th e z o n in g e sta b lish e d in t he .

. . m ap [i dent i fi ed i n t he 1985 zoni ng or di nance ]

. ” B d. of C ount y C om m r s . v. R ohr bach, 2 2 6 P 3 d 1 1 8 4 , 1 1 8 8 (C o lo . A p p . 2 0 0 9 ). 3 ord in ance to pr ope rl yin c orp orate a m a p or othe r d oc um e ntbyre c ord , fo ur
c ri te ri a m ust be sati sf ie d: (1) T he doc um e nt

m ust be suf fi c ie nt ly id e nt if

ie d so th a t th e re is no unc e rt a in ty

as to w hat w a s a dopt e d. (2 ) T he doc um e ntm ust be m a de a pub li c re c ord

. (3 ) I t m

ust be a c c e ss ib le to m e m

be rs of th e publ ic w ho are , or m ay be , a ff e c te d by it

. (4) T he ado pt ing reso lu tio n mus t g iv e no tice o f th is acc ess ib ili ty. E a st G e org ia L and & D e v. C o. v. N e w to n C ounty , 290 Ga. 7 32 , 737 (2 ) ( 723 SE2 d 9 09 ) ( 20 12 ) ( citati on and pu nctuat io n omitt ed) . A m ap no t yet in exis ten ce
can n o t h av e bee n “m ade a public re cord” and ce rta inly is not “ac ce ssible t o

m e m be rs of th e pub li c w ho are , or

m aybe , a ff

e c te d b y i t.” In de e d, th is C ourt pre vi ous ly

ha s re je c te d “the pr opos it io n that the pr in c ip le of in c orp orati on b y reference c an a

ppl ypr osp e c ti ve ly

to a doc um e ntw hi c h ha s y e t t o be fi le d or

m a de a publ ic re c ord be c ause it is non- e xi st e nt
. ” Mc K e e v. C ityof G e ne va , 2804

Ga . 411, 412-413 (6 27 SE2d 55 5) (200 6). C f. M id-Ga . E nviron m enta l Mgmt. G ro up v. Me ri w e th e r C ounty , 277 G a . 670 , 674 (5 ) ( 594 SE 2d 3 44) (2 004) (r e qui rem e nt s f

or in c orp orati on o f z oni ng m a p by re fe re nc e w e re m e t w he n,
am on g o th er th in gs , “[ t]he m in ut es sh ow th at th e Boar d had bef or e it t he o ff

icial

z oni ng m a

p at the ti m e it

c ons id e re d the or di nan c e ” ); R e y nol ds v

. B d. of C ommrs . of

Pa ul ding C ounty , 180 G a . App. 516 (3 49 S E 2d 5 36) (1 986) (up hol di ng va li di ty

of z oni ng o rdi nanc e — w hi c h purpo rt e d t o i nc orp orate th e of fi cial zon in g map b y referen ce — basedon , amo n g ot herth in gs , th e tri al

c ourt’ s f in di ng that “[a ] t the ti m e of sa id a dopt io n, th e re w a s an of fi c ia l z oni ng

m ap in existe nce ”). In this respe ct , our law is consiste nt with the gene ral rule i n A m e ri c an l aw . Se e 1 Sa lk in , A m e ri c an L aw of Z oni ng § 9: 3 ( 5 e d. ). Fro m th e th

re c ord , it app ears th a t a

n e ss e nt ia l p art

of th e z oni ng o rdi nanc e w a s m is si ng

w he n the C ountye na c te d the or di nan ce o n M ay21, 198 5. T he tr ia l c ourt s o fo un d, an d as a resu l t , t he tr ial co ur t con clu dedth at th e or di nan ce wa s v oi d at th e m om e ntof

it s e na c tm e nt
. We se e no e rr or inth e fi ndi ngs of th e t ri a l c ourt on this po int, nor in its c onclusio n that the ordinance wa s void from it s in c e pt io n. Se e B oatr ig ht , 104 G a . App. a t 6 88 ( 2). Se e a ls o I rvi n, 109 G a . App.
a t 6 00 ( 1).5

T he C ountyargu e s that, e ve n i f the or di nanc e w a s inva li d at the m om e nt of its enactme nt , it was made vali d o n J ul y 2, 1 98 5, wh en th e Cou nt y ado pt ed th e se t o f m a

ps b e ari ng the de si gnati on “ O ff ic ia l Z oni ng D is tr ic t M a ps o f Newto n Co un ty.” But t her e is n o evi den ce that th e Cou nt y re e nac te d th e ord in anc e on Jul y2, 198 5, w he n i t a dopt e d the m a ps, se e St a te e x r e l. We ik s v. T ow n of T umw a te r, 400 P2d

789 , 792 (W a sh. 196 5), and the re a ls o i s no evi den ce th at th e Co un ty pu rp or ted on Ju ly 2, 19 85 to in cor po rate th e adop ted

m a ps i nt o an y z oni ng o rdi nanc e . Se e B d. of C ountyC ommrs . v. R ohr ba c h, 226 P3 d 1 18 4, 1 18 8 ( Col o. Ap p. 2 00 9) . Andwe pr ev io us ly hav e rejected th e idea th at an o rd in ance vo idat th e m oment of its enactme nt can so m eho w be r evi ved wit ho ut th e fo rmality req ui redto fu lly en act it agai n. S ee McElh eney, 24 6 Ga.

a t 5 52- 553 (1) , (2) (z oni ng o rdi nanc e w a s vo id and c oul d no t b e re vi ve d w he re it re qui re d c e rt if

ic a ti on o f m a

ps b ya non e xi st ent offic ia l)

. Se e a ls o M anc il v. City o f P earso n, 1 58 Ga. 27 9, 2 8 2 (1 23 SE 2 07 ) ( 19 24 ) ( wh ere or di nan ce creatin g a b oar d o f tax -eq ual izers fo r th e year 19 22 was vo id , a 19 23 or di nan ce could not cure the prior ord inanc e and c reate a new board for the y ea r 1922 ). O n this point too, Ge orgia law is consiste nt with the gene ral rule in Am eri ca n law

. Se e 3 Rath kopf

’s T he L aw of Z oni ng & Planni ng § 39: 8 (4 e d. ) (“W he re th e thT w o ot her poi nt s w ar r ant a m ent i on. Fi r s t , i n i t s br i ef, t he C ount y w or r i es t hat , i f t he 3 ju dg m ent of t he t ri al cou rt w ere affir m ed, i t w ou l d “r end er every zon i ng ordin a n c e in G eo rgia inv ali d

. ” A fter all, the C o u n tysay s, m o st l o ca l zon ing o rdin an ce s an d m a p s are amended fr om t i m e t o t i m e, and i f t he adopt i on of m aps i n t hi s cas e aft er t he enact m ent of th e z o n in g o rd in a n c e lea v e s th e o rd in a n c e in v a lid , the n n o z o n in g o rd in a n c e o r m a p c o u ld be l at er amended. B ut t he C ount y m i s under s t ands t he r ul i ng of t he t r i al cour t
. I t w as not t he J ul y 2, 1985 adopt i o n o f m aps t hat r ender ed t he zoni ng or di nance her e i nval i d; t he zoni ng o r d i n a n c e i s i n v a l i d b e c a u s e , wh e n i t wa s e n a c t e d o n M a y 2 1 , 1 9 8 5 , i t wa s i n c o mp l e t e . An or di nance pr oper l y enac t ed and c om pl et e at i t s enac t m ent can be am en d ed , s o l ong as t he 6 or ig in al or di nan ce is it self vo idorin val idfo r f

ailu re to hav e fo llo wed pro c e dur a l r e qui re m e nt s i n i ts e na c tm e nt , th e usu a l rul e is th a t a nyam e ndm e nt th e re to — e ve n i f m a de und e r prope r proc e dur e s — is a ls o i nva li d. ” (C it a ti ons omitt ed.) ); 6 McQu ill in , The Law of Mu ni cip al Corpo rat i o n s § 21 :5 (3 d ed .) (“ The g eneral ru le is th at vo idor di nan ces can n o t be ame nd ed and th at an ord in anc e pa ss e d a s an am e ndm e ntto a pr e vi ous or di nanc e , w hi c h ne ve r t ook

e ff e c t, is in va li d; a

voi d or di nanc e c annot

be vi tali z e d by

am e ndm e nt , and

re e na c tm e ntis ne c e ss aryto va li date th a t in te nde d to be e na c te d by it

. ” (C it a ti ons omitt ed.) ). Th e adop tio n o f “Of fi cial Zon in g Dis tr ict Maps of Newto n Co un ty” on Jul y2, 198 5 di d no th in g t o r e vi ve th e in va li d or di nanc e of Ma y21, 198 5. T he tr ia l c ourt d id

not e rr w he n i t c onc lu de d that the Ma y21, 198 5 z oni ng ord in anc e is in val id , and it w a s r ig htto aw ard sum m aryju dgm e ntto E a st Ge orgia. Ac cordingly, we a ffirm the judgme nt of the tria l c ourt. 3p rop er p roc ed u res f o r am en d m en t are fo ll o w ed

. S ee M eriw ethe r C o u n ty , 2 7 7 G a. at 67 3 (3); A tl an ta B io-M ed v . D eK alb C o u n ty , 2 6 1 G a. 5 9 4 , 5 9 5 (2) ( 4 0 8 S E 2 d 1 0 0 ) (19 9 1 ). T h e w o rry expr es s ed by t he C ount y i s over bl ow n. S econ d, perhap s t he reader m i gh t t hink ou r deci si on form al i st i c, and i n a sense, i t i s. B ut t he l aw r equir es s uch for m al i s m , and as w e have expl ai ned bef or e, t her e ar e good r eas ons t o i ns i s t upon s uch for m al i s m i n l aw m ak ing, es peci al l y w hen i t comes t o t he e n a c t m e n t o f

l a w s r e s t r a i n i n g t h e p r o p e r t y r i g h t s o f c i t i z e n s . S u c h f

o r m a l i s m i s n e c e s s a r y, w e have s ai d, “t o pr ovi de ce r t ai nt y t o t he publ i c as t o w hat w as act ual l y adopt ed by t he C ount y and al s o t o pr ot ect t he publ i c fr om any ar bi t r ar y change s of t he or di nance or t he maps th a t d o n o t g o th ro u g h th e . . . n o tic e p ro c e s s .” N e w to n C o u n ty, 2 9 0 G a . a t 7 3 8 (2 ).
7 Jud gm e nta ff

irm e d. A ll th e Jus ti c e s c onc ur.