GA Code § 36-66-4 (2021)
2021 Georgia Code|Title 36 - Local Government|Chapter 66 - Zoning Procedures|§ 36-66-4. Hearings on Proposed Zoning Decisions; Notice of Hearing; Nongovernmental Initiated Actions; Reconsideration of Defeated Actions; Procedure on Zoning for Property Annexed Into Municipality

  A local government taking action resulting in a zoning decision shall provide for a hearing on the proposed action. At least 15 but not more than 45 days prior to the date of the hearing, the local government shall cause to be published within a newspaper of general circulation within the territorial boundaries of the local government a notice of the hearing. The notice shall state the time, place, and purpose of the hearing.   If a zoning decision of a local government is for the rezoning of property and the rezoning is initiated by a party other than the local government, then:   The notice, in addition to the requirements of subsection (a) of this Code section, shall include the location of the property, the present zoning classification of the property, and the proposed zoning classification of the property; and   A sign containing information required by local ordinance or resolution shall be placed in a conspicuous location on the property not less than 15 days prior to the date of the hearing.     If the zoning decision of a local government is for the rezoning of property and the amendment to the zoning ordinance to accomplish the rezoning is defeated by the local government, then the same property may not again be considered for rezoning until the expiration of at least six months immediately following the defeat of the rezoning by the local government.   If the zoning is for property to be annexed into a municipality, then:   Such municipal local government shall complete the procedures required by this chapter for such zoning, except for the final vote of the municipal governing authority, prior to adoption of the annexation ordinance or resolution or the effective date of any local Act but no sooner than the date the notice of the proposed annexation is provided to the governing authority of the county as required under Code Section 36-36-6;   The hearing required by subsection (a) of this Code section shall be conducted prior to the annexation of the subject property into the municipality;   In addition to the other notice requirements of this Code section, the municipality shall cause to be published within a newspaper of general circulation within the territorial boundaries of the county wherein the property to be annexed is located a notice of the hearing as required under the provisions of subsection (a) or (b), as applicable, of this Code section and shall place a sign on the property when required by subsection (b) of this Code section; and   The zoning classification approved by the municipality following the hearing required by this Code section shall become effective on the later of:   The date the zoning is approved by the municipality;   The date that the annexation becomes effective pursuant to Code Section 36-36-2; or   Where a county has interposed an objection pursuant to Code Section 36-36-11, the date provided for in paragraph (8) of subsection (c) of said Code section.       A qualified municipality into which property has been annexed may provide, by the adoption of a zoning ordinance, that all annexed property shall be zoned by the municipality, without further action, for the same use for which that property was zoned immediately prior to such annexation. A qualified county which includes property which has been deannexed by a municipality may provide, by the adoption of a zoning ordinance, that all deannexed property shall be zoned by the county, without further action, for the same use for which that property was zoned immediately prior to such deannexation. A municipality shall be a qualified municipality only if the municipality and the county in which is located the property annexed into such municipality have a common zoning ordinance with respect to zoning classifications. A county shall be a qualified county only if that county and the municipality in which was located the property deannexed have a common zoning ordinance with respect to zoning classifications. A zoning ordinance authorized by this subsection shall be adopted in compliance with the other provisions of this chapter. The operation of such ordinance to zone property which is annexed or deannexed shall not require any further action by the adopting municipality, adopting county, or owner of the property annexed or deannexed. Property which is zoned pursuant to this subsection may have such zoning classification changed upon compliance with the other provisions of this chapter.   When a proposed zoning decision relates to or will allow the location or relocation of a halfway house, drug rehabilitation center, or other facility for treatment of drug dependency, a public hearing shall be held on the proposed action. Such public hearing shall be held at least six months and not more than nine months prior to the date of final action on the zoning decision. The hearing required by this subsection shall be in addition to any hearing required under subsection (a) of this Code section. The local government shall give notice of such hearing by:   Posting notice on the affected premises in the manner prescribed by subsection (b) of this Code section; and   Publishing in a newspaper of general circulation within the territorial boundaries of the local government a notice of the hearing at least 15 days and not more than 45 days prior to the date of the hearing.  Both the posted notice and the published notice shall include a prominent statement that the proposed zoning decision relates to or will allow the location or relocation of a halfway house, drug rehabilitation center, or other facility for treatment of drug dependency. The published notice shall be at least six column inches in size and shall not be located in the classified advertising section of the newspaper.        (Code 1981, §36-66-4, enacted by Ga. L. 1985, p. 1139, § 1; Ga. L. 1996, p. 1009, § 2; Ga. L. 1998, p. 856, § 3; Ga. L. 1998, p. 1392, § 1; Ga. L. 2004, p. 69, § 19; Ga. L. 2012, p. 775, § 36/HB 942.)   Editor's notes.   - Ga. L. 2004, p. 69, § 1, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that: "This Act shall be known and may be cited as the 'State and Local Taxation, Financing, and Service Delivery Revision Act of 2004.'"   Law reviews.   - For article surveying real property law in 1984-1985, see 37 Mercer L. Rev. 343 (1985). For article on 2004 amendment of this Code section, see 21 Ga. St. U. L. Rev. 226 (2004). For annual survey on zoning and land use law, see 61 Mercer L. Rev. 427 (2009). For annual survey on real property, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 251 (2017). For annual survey on zoning and land use law, see 69 Mercer L. Rev. 371 (2017).   JUDICIAL DECISIONS   Subsection (b) mandatory for text amendment of general application.    - Procedures described in subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 must be followed when passing or rescinding a text amendment of general application. Atlanta Bio-Med, Inc. v. DeKalb County, 261 Ga. 594, 408 S.E.2d 100 (1991).   What constitutes "rezoning decision."    - Text amendment having general application is not a "rezoning decision" for purposes of the procedures required under subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4. Atlanta Bio-Med, Inc. v. DeKalb County, 261 Ga. 594, 408 S.E.2d 100 (1991).    Although O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 requires only one hearing during the continuous course of a zoning matter before the local government, when a court found a first zoning decision unconstitutional and remanded the matter with direction to rezone, the zoning authority was required to hold a hearing. City of Cumming v. Realty Dev. Corp., 268 Ga. 461, 491 S.E.2d 60 (1997).    Adult ordinance was not a "zoning ordinance" even though the ordinance placed certain limitations on locations available to an adult business and established certain minimum lot sizes and road frontages; rather than regulating general uses of land, the adult ordinance regulated a particular type of activity - adult entertainment; as such, it was not a zoning ordinance and was not subject to the hearing requirements established under the Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq. Artistic Entm't, Inc. v. City of Warner Robins, 331 F.3d 1196 (11th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 988, 124 S. Ct. 2017, 158 L. Ed. 2d 491 (2004).   Notice.    - County's failure to comply with the notice provisions of subsection (a) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 invalidated the subject zoning action. McClure v. Davidson, 258 Ga. 706, 373 S.E.2d 617 (1988).    Since a real estate developer had neither concluded the purchase of property or made substantial expenditures in reliance upon the probable issuance of a building permit until after the county amended the county's zoning ordinance to the detriment of the developer, the developer did not acquire a vested right to develop the property in question in conformity with the old ordinance; the county board of commissioner's letter to the developer amounted to an agreement to amend the ordinance and, thus, invoked the notice and hearing requirements under Georgia's Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq. Buckner v. Douglas County, 273 Ga. App. 765, 615 S.E.2d 850 (2005).    As a county's notice of the public hearing on a neighbor's request for a conditional use permit failed to comply with O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4(a) because the notice was published 46, not 45, days before the hearing, the county's approval of the neighbor's request was invalid. C & H Dev., LLC v. Franklin County, 294 Ga. App. 792, 670 S.E.2d 491 (2008).   Hearing requirement not met.    - Hearing before the Planning Commission did not satisfy the requirements of the Zoning Procedures Law, O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq., because the only record of the hearing was a one-page memorandum disclosing that the Commission heard testimony from the applicant and considerable objections from the surrounding neighborhood, but the memorandum did not disclose the nature of the objections and, thus, did not inform the County Board of Commissioners in a meaningful way of what happened at the hearing. Hoechstetter v. Pickens County, 303 Ga. 786, 815 S.E.2d 50 (2018).   Annexation voided when procedures not followed.    - Defendants attempt to annex certain properties into the corporate limits of the city and establish a new zoning district was voided because the procedural requirements of O.C.G.A § 36-36-21 and subsections (a) and (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 were not met. City of Byron v. Betancourt, 242 Ga. App. 71, 528 S.E.2d 841 (2000).   Applicability to new permitted use.    - Procedures described in subsection (b) of O.C.G.A. § 36-66-4 and former O.C.G.A. § 36-67-5 did not apply to the enactment of a zoning ordinance text amendment that allowed a new permitted use. Atlanta Bio-Med, Inc. v. DeKalb County, 261 Ga. 594, 408 S.E.2d 100 (1991).   Zoning map properly incorporated by reference.    - County zoning ordinance properly incorporated by reference an official zoning map as the board of commissioners had a zoning map before the commissioners when the commissioners considered the ordinance, the zoning map was in existence when a limited liability limited partnership (LLLP) bought the property and that map was kept in the zoning administrator's office, the new zoning administrator's uncertainty about which of two maps was the official map did not render the entire zoning ordinance invalid, and it was clear that the LLLP's land was not zoned for a landfill. Mid-Georgia Envtl. Mgmt. Group, L.L.L.P. v. Meriwether County, 277 Ga. 670, 594 S.E.2d 344 (2004).   Adequate state remedy for procedural irregularities in adoption of new zoning ordinances.    - Trial court did not err in granting the city's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the plaintiffs' procedural due process claims as Georgia's Zoning Procedures Law (ZPL), O.C.G.A. § 36-66-1 et seq., provided the plaintiffs with an adequate state remedy for alleged procedural irregularities committed by the city in the adoption of a new zoning ordinance because the ZPL required local governments to provide property owners with a meaningful opportunity to be heard before enacting a zoning ordinance, not simply mere notice of a hearing, as the ZPL required that a local government conduct a public hearing on a proposed zoning ordinance before its adoption; and, if no public hearing was held, aggrieved property owners could sue to have the ordinance declared invalid. Schumacher v. City of Roswell, 344 Ga. App. 135, 809 S.E.2d 262 (2017).    Cited in City of Roswell v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 274 Ga. 130, 549 S.E.2d 90 (2001); Edwards v. City of Warner Robins, 302 Ga. 381, 807 S.E.2d 438 (2017).   OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL   Reconsideration after tie vote.   - Tie vote on consideration of a zoning proposal by a county board was not a "defeat" of the proposal so as to bar the proposal's reconsideration within six months. 1996 Op. Att'y Gen. No. U96-16.