Source: https://www.jbwpc.com/Articles/Zoning-and-Land-Use-General/ETHICAL-ISSUES-IN-ZONING-AND-LAND-USE-CASES.shtml
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:29:09+00:00

Document:
The first and main area of conflicts of interest in zoning are rezonings. A rezoning is a legislative decision by the local governing body, whether county commission or city council. Ethics in rezonings are statutorily codified in the Conflict of Interest in Zoning Act, discussed below.
In 1986, the General Assembly enacted the Conflict of Interest in Zoning Act, O.C.G.A. § 36-67A-1 et seq. (the "Act"). This was, perhaps, a reaction to several recent zoning cases that had addressed the issue of a conflict of interest in a zoning context. Olley Valley Estates v. Fussell, 232 Ga. 779, 208 S.E.2d 801 (1974), the Court crafted a rule and held that a zoning commissioner should be disqualified if he holds a direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the zoning vote, which is not shared by the public in general and which is more than remote or speculative. Dunaway v. City of Marietta, 251 Ga. 727, 308 S.E.2d 823 (1983) concerned a planning commission chairman was also the vice president of the applicant. The court found that a question of fact as to a taint on the rezoning was created where the chairman presided without voting over the initial hearing and did not preside or vote at the second hearing. Finally, in Wyman v. Popham, 252 Ga. 247, 312 S.E.2d 795 (1984), the trial court held that where two voting commissioners sold products or services to the applicant, the vote was tainted by fraud and corruption. These cases show a sort of evolution of a doctrine of fraud and corruption in zoning that was judicially created. In 1986, the General Assembly stepped in to create its own rules.
shall immediately disclose the nature and extent of such interest, in writing, to the governing authority of the local government in which the local government official is a member. The local government official who has an interest as defined in paragraph (1) or (2) of this Code section shall disqualify himself from voting on the rezoning action.
Hence, a local official with a property interest directly in the property, or a financial interest in the company owning the property, should recuse himself. A "property interest" means any amount of direct ownership. O.C.G.A. § 36-67A-1(7). A "financial interest" means direct ownership of at least 10 percent of the stock or assets of a business entity. O.C.G.A. § 36-67A-1(3). Therefore, a commissioner owning one percent of a property directly would be disqualified, but a commissioner owning 9% of an applicant corporation would not be disqualified. It should also be noted that "local government official" includes "any member of a planning or zoning commission" in addition to the traditional members of the governing authority.
The Act also requires disclosure of all applicants and attorneys representing the applicant of any campaign contributions of more than $250.00, within ten days after filing the rezoning application. Disclosure is also required of any opponent of a rezoning, at least five days prior to the first hearing on the rezoning.Dealing with the Conflict of Interest in Zoning Act is dealt with more specifically in Section III, below.
Another ethical dimension to rezoning is the challenge that can be brought by neighbors. As is well-known, if a property owner is unhappy with a rezoning, he challenges the constitutionality of the existing zoning classification. Neighbors have a much tougher standard: "When neighbors of rezoned property challenge the rezoning in court on its merits, it will be set aside only if fraud or corruption is shown or the rezoning power is being manifestly abused to the oppression of the neighbors." Lindsey Creek Area Civic Association v. Columbus, 249 Ga. 488, 491, 292 S.E.2d 61 (1982). This standard has rarely been met. Wyman v. Popham, supra, is an example of where the Supreme Court found that there was evidence sufficient to authorize such a finding, and in that case, two council members had sold their products and services to the applicant's business.
Lobbying is a traditional activity in connection with rezonings and is not circumscribed by the Conflict of Interest in Zoning Act. The Act does require disclosure of campaign contributions by both proponents and opponents. However, as Little v.
City of Lawrenceville, supra, shows, there is little restraint even on the lobbying activities of a recused council member.
As a quasi-judicial action, local government officials are much more circumscribed in their action. They are not acting legislatively, they are generally applying some standard already in their ordinance, such as determining if the applicant has a hardship sufficient to qualify for a variance. Applicants are entitled to procedural due process. Jackson v. Spalding Co., 265 Ga. 792, 462 S.E.2d 361 (1995). "Procedural due process means notice and an opportunity for affected parties to be heard. The purpose of the hearing is to permit interested persons to furnish information that will assist the board in deciding whether a variance should be granted. To that end, the chairperson may conduct the hearing informally; strict adherence to the rules of evidence is not required. The goal is a fair hearing." 265 Ga. at 795.
A. White et al. v. Board of Commissioners of McDuffie County et al., 252 Ga.App. 120, 555 S.E.2d 45 (2001).
B. Little v. City of Lawrenceville, 272 Ga. 340, 528 S.E.2d 515 (2000).

References: § 36
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 36
 § 36
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.