Source: https://www.jbwpc.com/Articles/Zoning-and-Land-Use-General/LEGISLATIVE-VERSUS-ADMINISTRATIVE-ZONING-AND-LAND-USE-DECISIONS.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:05:49+00:00

Document:
Zoning and land use decisions at the local government level are of two types. One is legislative, the other administrative. Different procedural rules apply depending on which type of decision is being made. It is therefore imperative that we understand the different nature of these two types of decisions and how different procedural rules apply to each.
Administrative land use decisions include the grant or denial of variances and subdivision plats, and decisions going to the interpretation of or application of land use ordinances. Administrative zoning decisions are defined thusly, not by the officer or board that makes the decision, but by the nature of the decision being made.1 For example, a zoning ordinance may designate a board of commissioners may make administrative decisions, such as the grant of a variance, while the same board may at another time make legislative decisions, such as the rezoning of property. It is the type of decision being considered that determines whether it is administrative or legislative.
Due process at the local government level does not require strict procedural rules as mandated in a court of law. Not only that, public hearings are conducted by non-lawyers who are not expected to follow rules of civil procedure. Thus, a more relaxed proceeding is acceptable, although it must meet a minimal level of fairness.5 For added protection, administrative zoning decisions are subject to appeal to the superior court.
Legislative decisions are those which have broad-based application and are in the nature of policy making by the local government. They are more apt to apply to the general population than impact specific individuals.13 Adoption of an ordinance, such as a zoning ordinance, is the most typical example of legislative decision making. Under the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law, the General Assembly defined the following as legislative decisions: adoption of a zoning ordinance, amendment to a zoning ordinance, the rezoning of property from one zoning classification to another, and the grant of a special use permit.14 Since these are deemed legislative decisions, only the governing body of the local government may make them. In the case of cities, that is reserved exclusively to the city council or city commission; in the case of counties, legislative decisions are reserved exclusively to the board of commissioners. A planning commission appointed by the local governing body may make recommendations to the governing body, but the ultimate decision rests within the legislative discretion of the local governing body.
Legislative decisions are not bound by specific rules or standards. They are intended to have broad application, and though subject to constitutional limitations, legislative decisions are based upon broad discretionary powers inherent in the legislative process.15 This is true although the local government is required by the Zoning Procedures Act to adopt standards governing rezoning decisions.
Like the appeal of administrative decisions, legislative decisions are subject to a limited judicial review. But the court in its review is not limited only to a review of the evidence presented to the local government. The superior court on appeal conducts a de novo review of the challenges to the zoning decision.16 Therefore, the court is not bound by the facts or evidence presented to the local governing body, but is free to review the evidence presented in the trial and to make its own determination of the facts. Unless damages are in issue, the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance as applied to the petitioner's property is made by the court sitting as the trier of fact. It is a fresh appeal, and new evidence, including expert testimony, may be offered to the court. The court is free to make an independent determination of whether the procedural or substantive challenges may be sustained based on the evidence presented to the court and based on the applicable law.
This more commonly occurs in challenges to the rezoning of property or grant of a special use permit.
Whether the appeal is a facial challenge or an as applied challenge, the superior court is authorized to receive evidence de novo and make a decision as to whether the legislative decision will survive constitutional scrutiny.
In an "as applied" constitutional challenge, an appeal to the superior court is initiated by filing a complaint challenging the decision by the local government. Although it is in the nature of an appeal, it is treated as a complaint in equity.18 Of course, if damages apply, then legal remedies as well as equitable may be available to the complaining party.
When appeals involve zoning decisions, the separation of powers doctrine prohibits the court from rezoning property. The court's remedy to a complaining party, other than damages, is limited to declaring a zoning decision unconstitutional. If the zoning is declared unconstitutional by the court, it utilizes its injunction powers to remand the case to the local government with direction to rezone the property to a constitutional zoning classification.20 In this way, the legislative discretion of the local government is not judicially usurped, although the local government must rezone the property to a classification different from that found unconstitutional by the superior court.
Local government zoning decisions are generally of two types: administrative and legislative. Request for variances, subdivision plat approval, and zoning decisions by zoning officials are examples of administrative zoning decisions. Due process safeguards are required in administrative decision making, including the right to notice, to present evidence, to cross-examine witnesses, to develop a record of the proceedings, and to a written decision by an impartial decision-maker based on the record. An administrative land use decision is judicial in nature, as the decision-maker determines the facts and applies the facts to the legal standards in the zoning ordinance.
Legislative decisions, on the other hand, are those which result in the adoption of a zoning ordinance, an amendment to the zoning ordinance, the rezoning of property, and the approval of a special use permit. These decisions must be made by the local governing authority. As legislative decisions, they are policy-making decisions with usually broad application. Due process, trial-type hearings are not required, but the local government is required to conduct a hearing in which applicants and opponents may present their case to the decision-maker.
Legislative decisions are limited by the Constitution, and thus the typical issue on appeal of a legislative decision is whether it violates any of the protections afforded under either the Georgia or Federal Constitutions.
3Jackson v. Spalding County, 265 Ga. 792, 462 S.E.2d 361 (1995), (for variance, board considers whether facts applying to property warrant relief from zoning under standards in ordinance); Bentley v. Chastain, 242 Ga. 348, 249 S.E.2d 38 (1978).
4Jackson v. Spalding County, 265 Ga. 792, 462 S.E.2d 361 (1995).
5Jackson v. Spalding County, 265 Ga. 792, 462 S.E.2d 361 (1995)(strict adherence to rules of evidence not required; hearing may be conducted informally).
10Jackson v. Spalding County, 265 Ga. 792, 462 S.E.2d 361 (1995).
13Crymes v. DeKalb County, 923 F. 2d 1482 (11th Cir. 1991).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.