Court Opinion

ID: 9589958
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:50:30.226451+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:54.739360
License: Public Domain

Carley, Justice,
dissenting.
The majority states that “[t]he issue in this case is whether persons who challenge the constitutionality of zoning ordinances should have a right of direct appeal.” (Emphasis supplied.) If that were the question, viable policy arguments supporting the majority’s conclusion could be presented in the appropriate forum. However, the issue in this case really is whether or not persons who challenge the constitutionality of zoning ordinances do have a right of direct appeal under applicable constitutional and statutory provisions. This Court clearly has the ultimate responsibility for construing the constitutional and statutory provisions regarding the jurisdiction of the appellate courts of this state. Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis &c. Clinic, 267 Ga. 177 (476 SE2d 587) (1996). I know of no authority, however, *726which authorizes this Court to disregard the clear mandate of existing jurisdictional provisions and to decline to hear an appeal which those provisions compel that we consider. Because I believe that the majority misconstrues OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) and that the judgment of the trial court in this case is reviewable on direct appeal, I respectfully dissent.
OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) does not provide that appeals in zoning cases can be brought only by means of the discretionary appeal process. By its terms, that statute provides, in relevant part, only that “[a]ppeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of . . . local administrative agencies” must be brought by means of that process.
The clear intent of section (a) (1), above, was to give the appellate courts . . . the discretion not to entertain an appeal where the superior court had reviewed a decision of certain specified lower tribunals (i.e., two tribunals had already adjudicated the case).
C & S Nat. Bank v. Rayle, 246 Ga. 727, 730 (273 SE2d 139) (1980). Thus, unless a zoning case constitutes an appeal from a decision of the superior court reviewing a zoning decision of the local zoning agency, it is not a discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). While, in Trend Development Corp. v. Douglas County, 259 Ga. 425 (1) (383 SE2d 123) (1989), we did hold that “appeals in zoning cases will henceforth require an application,” that holding clearly was premised upon OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). Accordingly, Trend stands only for the proposition that an appeal from a decision of the superior court reviewing a zoning decision of the local zoning agency is a zoning case which is subject to the discretionary appeal process, because it is a case which two tribunals had already adjudicated.
In this case, O S Advertising’s (OSA) application for a variance as to one of its signs was denied by the Board of Zoning Adjustments (BZA) and OSA filed an appeal of that administrative decision to the superior court. The superior court upheld the decision of the BZA, and it is clear that OSA’s appeal from that decision of the superior court would be subject to the discretionary appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1). However, OSA did not limit the relief it sought from the superior court to a prayer for a reversal of the BZA’s decision. OSA
also sought a declaration that the sections of the Atlanta City Code governing the erection of signs ... be declared unconstitutional as a violation of constitutional protections of free speech . . . and the takings clause of the Federal and *727State constitutions. . . .
Decided March 10, 1997
Reconsideration denied April 3, 1997.
Schreeder, Wheeler & Flint, David H. Flint, Mark W. Forsling, for appellant.
David D. Blum, Robert L. Zoeckler, for appellees.
O S Advertising Co. v. Rubin, 263 Ga. 761 (438 SE2d 907) (1994). There is no requirement that a constitutional attack be initiated before the local zoning agency where, as here, the contention is not that an ordinance is unconstitutional as applied specifically to the landowner’s property, but that the ordinance is unconstitutional as applied to all property within its purview. O S Advertising Co. v. Rubin, supra at 764 (3). Thus, it is clear that OSA’s appeal to this Court from the superior court’s ruling on the declaratory judgment issue would not be subject to the discretionary appeal provisions of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), since, in addressing the constitutionality of the ordinances, the superior court was not reviewing only a decision of a lower tribunal, but was actually sitting as a trial court.
The majority justifies its dismissal of OSA’s direct appeal on the ground that it declines to create an exception to Trend. I submit, however, that the majority’s holding is entirely inconsistent with and an unwarranted extension of Trend. I do not deny that viable policy arguments can be advanced for making appeals in all zoning cases subject to the discretionary appeal process. In my opinion, however, those policy arguments should be advanced in the General Assembly in connection with an effort to amend OCGA § 5-6-35. Until OCGA § 5-6-35 is amended so as to provide that appeals in all zoning cases are subject to the discretionary appeal process, I would adhere to the limited holding in Trend that all appeals from a decision of the superior court reviewing a zoning decision of the local zoning agency are subject to the discretionary appeal process. Because the superior court’s declaratory judgment ruling as to the constitutionality of the zoning ordinances in this case was not restricted to a review of a decision of the local zoning agency, I dissent to the majority’s dismissal of OSA’s direct appeal from that ruling by the superior court.