Source: https://www.jbwpc.com/Articles/Zoning-and-Land-Use-General/ANNEXATION-FROM-A-TO-Z.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:23:17+00:00

Document:
Annexation is governed by O.C.G.A. Title 36, Chapter 36 (§ 36-36-1 et seq.) That chapter describes three main types of annexation: the 100 percent method, the 60 percent method, and annexation by resolution and referendum. Property can also be annexed by local act of the General Assembly. Each will be outlined in turn, and deannexation procedures will be briefly discussed. Following that will be an analysis of zoning problems that arise in the annexation context, as well as a discussion of the Zoning Procedures Law as it relates to annexation. Finally, this paper will address the newly added provisions related to the resolution of annexation disputes, O.C.G.A. § 36-36-110 et seq., which became effective on September 1, 2007.
Municipal corporations can annex unincorporated areas contiguous to the existing corporate limits – "contiguous" means abuts the municipal limits, or is separated by a street, river or railroad-type right-of-way, or city land, or land owned by some other political subdivision, or the lands owned by the state. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-20.
When a municipal corporation wishes to annex a body of parcels at one time, all of the parcels proposed to be annexed are treated as one body, regardless of the number of owners, and all parcels are considered to be contiguous to the limits of the municipal corporation if any one part of the entire body abuts the municipal limits. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-21.
2. The notice must include a map or other description sufficient to identify the area.
3. The notice must be sent certified mail, or statutory overnight delivery, return receipt requested.
C. The county must respond, via certified mail, return receipt requested, within five business days of receipt, and inform if any county owned facilities are located in the proposed area to be annexed. O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-7 and 36-36-9.
D. When a municipal corporation annexes the property on both sides of a county road right-of-way, unless the municipality and county agree otherwise by joint resolution, the annexing municipal corporation assumes the ownership, control, care and maintenance of that right-of-way. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-7.
E. Once the property is annexed, identification of property shall be filed with the Department of Community Affairs and the governing authority of the county in which the property is located. These reports should be filed no later than 30 days following the last day of the yearly quarter in which the annexation become effective. For a complete description of what must be included in these reports, see O.C.G.A. § 36-36-3(a). O.C.G.A. § 36-36-3.
F. See Section X below for further timelines on dispute resolution. (Thirty days to object under that statute).
Under this method, municipal corporations of at least 200 persons can annex a contiguous area – but contiguous area has a different definition from the definition of the 100 percent method. Here, "contiguous" means at least one-eighth of the property's aggregate external boundary must abut the municipal boundary (or would abut if not separated by streets, rivers, public rights-of-way, county land, city land or state land). O.C.G.A. § 36-36-31.
When a municipal corporation wishes to annex a body of parcels at one time, all of the parcels proposed to be annexed are treated as one body, regardless of the number of owners, and all parcels are considered to be contiguous to the limits of the municipal corporation if any one part of the entire body abuts the municipal limits. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-32.
2. Signed by at least 60 percent of the electors resident in the area and at least 60 percent of the record title holders of the fee simple title (or legal representatives thereof) of the land area, by acreage. Name, address and date of signature must also be printed on application, along with whether the applicant is a landowner, elector, or both.
1. Held within 15 to 45 days after petition determined valid under step D. above.
I. Once the property is annexed, identification of property shall be filed with the Department of Community Affairs, and the governing authority of the county in which the property is located. These reports should be filed no later than 30 days following the last day of the yearly quarter in which the annexation becomes effective. For a complete description of what must be included in these reports, see O.C.G.A. § 36-36-3(a). O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-38 and 36-36-3.
J. Ad valorem taxes shall not be applied to the newly annexed area until January 1 of the following year. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-38.
K. Within thirty days, any elector or property owner of the annexed area or the municipal corporation may file a petition for declaratory judgment in the county superior court, to determine the validity of the annexation as related to this chapter of the Georgia Code. Whenever such a petition is filed, the municipality should file the record of the official actions in regards to the disputed application, along with a certified copy of the annexing ordinance.
L. The court can declare the annexation void if they find a lack of substantial compliance with the annexation provision contained in this chapter of the Georgia Code. If the court finds a procedural defect or defects in the plans for extending services to the annexed area, the court will issue a judgment to cure the defect and uphold the ordinance, if possible. Further review is normally available. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-39.
Municipal corporations have the authority to extend their boundaries by resolution and referendum. O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-50 et seq.
E. The county must respond, via certified mail, return receipt requested, within five business days of receipt, and inform if any county owned facilities are located in the proposed area to be annexed. O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-7 and 36-36-9.
I. Once the property is annexed, identification of property shall be filed with the Department of Community Affairs and the governing authority of the county in which the property is located. These reports should be filed no later than 30 days following the last day of the yearly quarter in which the annexation become effective. For a complete description of what must be included in these reports, see O.C.G.A. § 36-36-3(a). O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-59 and 36-36-3.
K. Appeal to the superior court is available, but in determining whether the criteria of A. have been met, the court must use the city's estimates so long as those estimates meet certain criteria described in the statute. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-55.
The General Assembly has the authority to pass local Acts annexing territory to municipal corporations. The above methods are derived from the General Assembly's legislative power to annex. This authority was codified effective July 1, 1996 as Article 1A of Chapter 36, Title 36. Annexation or deannexation can be accomplished by this method. Municipalities are "creations of the General Assembly," so their boundaries may be changed by the General Assembly.
D. The county must respond, via certified, return receipt requested, within five business days of receipt, and inform if any county owned facilities are located in the proposed area to be annexed. O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-7 and 36-36-9.
E. The legislation may incorporate referendum approval under the terms and conditions specified in local law. However, such referendum approval is required if the area to be annexed contains more than 500 people, or more than 3 percent of the municipality's population. The municipality must pay for the referendum. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-16.
F. There is no contiguity requirement for this method. See, City of Fort Oglethorpe v. Boger, 267 Ga. 485, 480 S.E.2d 186 (1997).
A. Under Article 6 of Chapter 36, Title 36, an unincorporated island consists of an unincorporated area in existence as of January 1, 1991 with its aggregate boundaries abutting a city, or a combination of cities. In other words, the entire border of this island must touch the boundaries of incorporated areas, whether one city or several. The unincorporated land can be separated by county, municipal or state land, or by the width of a creek or river, a street right-of-way, or a railroad/public service right-of-way. For example, a parcel of land, entirely abutted along its perimeter by city land, except for a small parcel of state property on the border, could still be annexed. All the property must be in the same county. For many years in order to qualify as an unincorporated island, in addition to the requirements above, the unincorporated area had to consist of 50 acres or less. That requirement, however, was removed from the statute by a 2000 amendment. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-90.
B. Municipalities can annex unincorporated islands by ordinance, at a regular meeting of the city governing authority, thirty days after written notice to owners. No application or permission is required. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-92(b).
C. Notice of intent must be mailed to owners at last known address as it appears on the ad valorem tax records of the county wherein the property is located. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-92(b).
D. Once the property is annexed, identification of property shall be filed with the Department of Community Affairs and the governing authority of the county in which the property is located. These reports should be filed no later than 30 days following the last day of the yearly quarter in which the annexation become effective. For a complete description of what must be included in these reports, see O.C.G.A. § 36-36-3(a). O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-92(b) and 36-36-3.
E. An unincorporated island can be surrounded by one city or several. The city with the greatest boundary has the right to incorporate; however, the affected municipalities may agree otherwise. The unincorporated island can be separated from the city by a street right-of-way, a creek or river, or a public service/railroad right-of-way owned by some other entity, and still share a contiguous boundary, allowing annexation. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-92(c).
Municipal services to the annexed area should be supplied in substantially the same manner as they are to the rest of the municipality; however, the extension of water and sewer services should be accomplished pursuant to the policies in effect in the city for extending these services to individual lots and subdivisions. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-92(e).
B. If a municipality annexes on both sides of a county road right-of-way, the municipality shall assume the ownership, control, care and maintenance of that property unless the county and municipality agree otherwise. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-7(c).
C. If a county owned property or county owned facility is no longer useable for service to the unincorporated area of the county, the municipality is required to acquire such property provided the annexation is final, the property or facility is solely funded by, and solely provides service to, unincorporated areas, and the county adopts a resolution declaring the property unusable only as a result of the annexation. The county receives fair market value – as determined by agreement or by special master appointed by superior court. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-7(d).
D. Annexations done by methods other than local Act are effective for ad valorem tax purposes on December 31 of the year during which the annexation occurred. If an independent school district exists within the boundaries of a municipality, other effective dates may be established solely for determining school enrollment. For all other purposes, annexations are effective on the first day of the month following the month during which the requirements of the method are met. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-2(a). (Amended effective July 1, 1996 – prior law made annexations effective on last day of calendar quarter, and lacked the ad valorem provision).
Annexations by local Act become effective for ad valorem purposes on December 31 of the year in which the annexation occurred, but for all other purposes become effective on the date the local Act becomes effective or on such date as is specified in the Act. O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-2(b).
F. The requirements of the Voting Rights Act, 47 U.S.C. § 1971 et seq., apply to all annexations. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-3. The basis of this requirement is the effect annexation has on voting. Even the annexation of vacant land which is anticipated to become residential has been held to require preclearance, as it constituted a "change in voting practice or procedure." City of Pleasant Grove v. U.S., 479 U.S. 462, 107 S.Ct. 794, 93 L.Ed.2d 866 (1987). After-the-fact preclearance, while an oxymoron, does solve the problem. City of Arcade v. Emmons, 268 Ga. 230, 486 S.E.2d 359 (1997). O.C.G.A. § 36-60-11 requires all actions precleared by a local government to be submitted to the Attorney General.
G. Annexation Across County Boundary Lines. Annexation across county boundary lines, when the municipality does not already have property in the new county, can only be performed subject to special procedures contained in O.C.G.A. § 36-36-23. Within ten business days of receiving an application for annexation, the municipal corporation shall provide written notice to the county governing authority of the adjoining county of its intent to annex into the county. A meeting between the county governing authority and municipal governing authority shall be held to discuss the proposed annexation if the county governing authority files a written request for such meeting with the municipal governing authority within 15 days of receipt of the notice of the proposed annexation. The requested meeting shall be held within 15 days of the request by the county unless otherwise agreed to by the county and the municipality.
Next, a resolution of the county in which such property is located consenting to such deannexation must be passed. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-22.
When such application is acted upon by the municipal authorities and the land is, by ordinance, deannexed from the municipal corporation, an identification of the property so deannexed shall be filed with the Department of Community Affairs and the governing authority of the county in which the property is located. These reports should be filed no later than 30 days following the last day of the yearly quarter in which the annexation becomes effective. For a complete description of what must be included in these reports, see O.C.G.A. § 36-36-3(a). O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-22 and 36-36-3.
Once an annexation is effective, which occurs on the first day of the month following satisfaction of all annexation requirements of the method followed, the property transfers from the jurisdiction of the county, losing whatever zoning the county provided, and becomes unzoned. This issue presents problems to most cities conducting annexation. A variety of invalid zoning methods has been used in the past. The main difficulty involved conducting rezoning hearings of property not in the city; the alternative was a period when property was unzoned. Recognition of this problem sparked amendments to the Zoning Procedures Law (the "ZPL" located at O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq.), designed to address the problems.
The General Assembly revisited the ZPL in 1998, adopting further procedures relating to annexation of property. Qualified municipalities are now authorized to adopt a zoning ordinance that provides for all annexed property to come into the city for the same use for which that property was zoned immediately prior to such annexation. O.C.G.A. §§ 36-66-4(e). Qualified counties that deal with deannexed properties can adopt similar ordinances. (Id.). Qualification means that the relevant city and county must have a common zoning ordinance with respect to zoning classifications.
Further 1998 amendments relate to location of a halfway house, drug rehabilitation center or other drug treatment facility. O.C.G.A. §§ 36-66-4(f) requires a pubic hearing six to nine months before the final action of the zoning. The government must give notice of the hearing by posting notice and publishing in a general circulation newspaper. No further requirement besides a hearing is required, but this provision may violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Treating a rezoning differently for persons with handicaps potentially violates that act, and the ZPL is facially discriminatory. The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act were both found to be violated by a zoning ordinance in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (See, Bay Area Addiction Research and Treatment Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725 (9th Cir. 1999)).
Finally, in 2003, the General Assembly enacted additional requirements relating to military bases, installations and airports. O.C.G.A. § 36-66-6 requires that any city with a planning department or agency responsible for reviewing zoning proposals investigates and addresses additional considerations enumerated in the statute if the property proposed to be zoned is within 3,000 feet from one of the above military areas. The additional items of consideration generally relate to whether the proposed change in land use will adversely affect the operation or safety of the nearby military facilities. The statute also requires coordination with the commander of the military base, installation or airport at least 30 days prior to the hearing required by O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4(a).
The amendments to the ZPL were necessitated by the quandary cities were left in when attempting to annex property. Often, the municipality made a mistake and inadvertently left the property unzoned, thus creating future land use problems and spawning litigation.
One invalid method used in the past was to adopt a provision in the zoning ordinance that all future annexed property is to be zoned one particular way. Cities would sometimes simply state in their ordinance or council minutes that the property was annexed as R-1, for example. Another invalid method was to have a provision in the zoning ordinance that any property annexed keeps the zoning classification assigned by the county. Typical problems arose when the county's residential designations did not specifically match any municipal residential designation, as is frequently the case.
The problem with these methods is that they do not comport with the Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq. Applying zoning to newly annexed property would likely have qualified as a "zoning decision" under O.C.G.A. § 36-66-3 (and has now been formally made one), and as such, a variety of procedures are necessary. Of course, annexations effective prior to the effective date of the ZPL (January 1, 1986) are not subject to its requirements.
Unfortunately, the consequences of these improper zoning decisions potentially go unnoticed for years, after substantial development of the subject property and the surrounding property. The result is political turmoil and one or more lawsuits. Cities would be well advised to reexamine annexations in their files, and if necessary, rezone those properties in a constitutional fashion. Though this can create unwanted publicity and essentially awakens a sleeping dog, sooner or later the problem will be noticed.
procedures, the courts have not yet offered their guidance in explaining how some of the more ambiguous and unclear sections of this Article will operate.
When a petition for annexation is received, the city must notify the governing authority of the county by certified mail or statutory overnight delivery of the petition. The notice must include a copy of the annexation petition showing the proposed zoning and land use for the area. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-111. See also the general annexation notice provisions of O.C.G.A. § 36-36-6.
After being given notice, if the county raises no objection to the annexation, the annexation procedure may then move forward. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-112.
As a condition of the annexation, for a period of one year, the city must not change the zoning or land use plan for the annexed property to a more intense density or use than that stated in the notice given to the governing authority of the county. This does not apply, however, if the city makes the change in the delivery agreement or comprehensive plan, and the change is adopted by the city, county, and all required parties. O.C.G.A. §§ 36-36-112 and 36-36-117.
After being given notice, the governing authority of the county can object to the annexation.
E. If an objection is made by the county, a five-member arbitration panel has to be formed within 15 days of the first objection. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-114.
The panel first determines if the county's grounds for objection are valid.
Among other things, the panel will consider existing land use and patterns and plans, and zoning patterns, in both the city and county, as well as the approval of similar developments or changes in intensity or use by the county in the past. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-115(a)(2).
Majority Rules. A decision by a majority of the panel is binding on all parties involved.
Among other remedial powers, the panel may establish zoning, land use or density conditions to the area proposed to be annexed.
The County pays at least 75% of the cost of the arbitration, with the remaining 25% divided between the county and city in a manner in which the panel deems appropriate. However, in the event the panel finds that a frivolous position has been advanced, the advancing party must bear the entire cost of the arbitration. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-115(a)(4). It is uncertain whether this would include attorney's fees, for example.
I. If there are other annexation disputes between the city and county, under certain circumstances, the panel may agree to consolidate the disputes for judicial economy purposes. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-115(e).
2. The appeal must be based on errors or fact or law, bias or misconduct of an arbitrator, or the panel's abuse of discretion.
K. If at any time during the process the annexation is abandoned by the city or the applicant, for a period of one year, the county must not change the zoning, land use or density for the annexed property. This does not apply, however, if the county makes the change in the service delivery agreement or comprehensive plan, and the change is adopted by the city, county, and all required parties. O.C.G.A. § 36-36-118.
L. The final resolution of an objection, whether by agreement of the city and county, act of the panel, or appeal to the superior court, is valid for a period of one year, and the county is estopped from raising any further objection as to the subject annexation during that one year period.
City of Fort Oglethorpe v. Boger, 267 Ga. 485, 480 S.E.2d 186 (1997) dealt with a problem that has vast potential in the annexation arena. The claim was that a prior annexation was invalid; therefore, the contiguous annexations that depended on the prior annexation were void. If an early annexation done improperly falls, all the annexations that attached to it and depended on it for contiguity will fall as well. In this particular case, the earlier annexation was held valid, even though it was not contiguous, because the annexation was done by a local Act of the General Assembly, and such annexations are not bound by contiguity requirements.
City of Arcade v. Emmons, 268 Ga. 230, 486 S.E.2d 359 (1997) dealt with failure to preclear an annexation under the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. There, the City had allowed people to vote in an election, despite the fact that they lived in areas that had been improperly annexed. The impropriety was failure to preclear the annexation with the Justice Department. Despite receiving the preclearance during the pendency of the suit, the issue was not necessarily rendered moot. The trial court had set aside the election, and the Supreme Court noted that the power was proper, but it should be exercised only when absolutely necessary to protect important voting rights, and reversed the trial court's action. The Court concluded by noting that, since the error had been corrected, the matter was ended.
City of Smyrna v. Adams, 255 Ga. App. 453, 565 S.E.2d 606 (2002) recognized the rule espoused in Boger, and in doing so held that it is proper to challenge the validity of an annexation by challenging the validity of a prior annexation of contiguous property. The court invalidated the annexations of two unincorporated islands based on a procedurally improper annexation done sixteen years before.
City of Riverdale v. Clayton County, 263 Ga.App. 672, 588 S.E.2d 845 (2003) dealt with a situation where an annexation was invalidated due to the city's failure to produced adequate plans for the extension of services to the area to be annexed as required by O.C.G.A. § 36-36-35, and its failure to make a determination that the proposed annexation was in the best interest of the citizens of the city and the area to be annexed as required by O.C.G.A. § 36-36-37(a). The Court held that the best interest determination must be made for the annexation to be valid. Although technically it is not required to be made on the record, the court noted that "it certainly behooves any municipal corporation to make a record of such a mandated determination." As for the extension of services, the plans provided by the city contained only short, conclusory statements by the heads of the various departments that such services could be provided. The Court held that these sorts of statements were inadequate under the statute because they prevented the public from participating intelligently in the hearing on the annexations.
Fayette County v. Steele, 268 Ga.App. 13, 601 S.E.2d 403 (2004) dealt with a situation where the landowner excepted a 10-foot strip from two parcels to be annexed in order to avoid creating an unauthorized unincorporated island. The County raised an objection on the basis that the exception violated the "entire parcel" requirement of O.C.G.A. § 36-36-20(a). The Court began by noting that the General Assembly intended that a liberal policy apply in the area of municipal annexations. The Court concluded that because it was undisputed that the 10-foot strip was not excepted in an attempt to evade the "entire parcel" requirement of O.C.G.A. § 36-36-20(a), the annexation was not invalid. The Court noted that if it were to rule for the County in this situation that it would, in effect, leave this particular landowner with no way to have his property properly annexed.
Cobb County v. City of Smyrna, 270 Ga.App. 471, 606 S.E.2d 667 (2004) dealt with a situation where the City of Smyrna desired to tie into water lines owned by the county, but located in an area annexed by the city. In support of its actions, the City cited O.C.G.A. § 36-34-5, which states that a city is authorized to "access, extend and tie on to all water lines within its municipal limits." On the other hand, the county pointed to O.C.G.A. § 36-36-7(b), which states that "a county's ownership and control of its facilities in an annexed area is not to be diminished by an annexation." The court, by applying a common rule of statutory construction, concluded that the city had a right to tie into the water lines, despite the fact that they were owned by the county. In fact, the court concluded that cities have a right to extend any water line located within its municipal boundaries. The court, however, noted that city could not extend or obtain access to the line without acquiring the right through one of the three methods enumerated by the statue (i.e. acquisition by gift, purchase, or by the exercise of the right of eminent domain).
Bradley Plywood Corp. v. Mayor & Alderman of City of Savannah, 271 Ga.App. 828, 611 S.E.2d. 105 (2005) dealt with a situation where it was the practice of the city to hold regular meetings every other Thursday, and that such meetings were scheduled in September or October of the previous year. In this case, the every other Thursday schedule resulted in meetings falling on Thanksgiving and Christmas day. Recognizing these dates, the City included asterisks by these days on the original schedule noting that they would be held on alternative dates because of the holidays. At a regular meeting in October, the City voted to reschedule these meetings to November 26 and December 23, respectively, and immediately posted these dates on the City's website, at the meeting location, and on the door of the city clerk's office. The City then sent a letter to the property owners on November 15, and sent legal notice to the property owners in the area to be annexed on November 26. Finally, at the December 23 meeting the annexation was approved and became effective eight days later. The plaintiffs sought to have the annexation ordinance declared null and void based on the argument that the ordinance was not adopted at a "regular meeting" as required by the Open Meetings Act, because the meeting was held on an earlier date than the date shown on the original schedule. The Court held that because the notation on the original schedule stated that the meeting would have to be rescheduled, the first date was actually set during the October regular meeting when the date was set for December 23. As a result, there was no rescheduling that turned the regular meeting into a special meeting. The plaintiffs also challenged the annexation by arguing that they did not receive 30 days notice as required by O.C.G.A. § 36-36-92(b) because the city did not send out actual legal notice until November 26. The Court held that the language of the statute requires that the annexation occur no later than 30 days after the notice is mailed, and not, as the plaintiffs asserted, that the annexation occur no sooner than 30 days after the notice is mailed.

References: § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 v. 
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 1971
 § 36
 v. 
 v. 
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 12131
 § 794
 v. 
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 § 36
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1973
 v. 
 v. 
 § 36
 § 36
 v. 
 § 36
 § 36
 v. 
 § 36
 § 36
 v. 
 § 36