Court Opinion

ID: 9587337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:21:11.487987+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:21.249802
License: Public Domain

HUNSTEIN, Presiding Justice,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion that under the facts in this appeal the County was not restricted in its decision-making authority to consideration of land use and environmental factors. I write separately, however, to emphasize two points. First, the County’s authority to consider other relevant factors in reviewing plan consistency emanates from the absence of any restrictive language or procedure in its 2002 SWMP, a plan which is inconsistent with current DCA Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures. DCA Rule 110-4-3-.04 (5) (d) (3), effective January 1, 2004, requires a SWMP to
specify a procedure the local government(s) will follow to determine if a proposed facility, public or private, is consistent with the plan. At a minimum, the procedure shall address
(i) how the public will be involved and notified;
(ii) the anticipated impact the proposed facility will have upon current solid waste management facilities;
*319(iii) the anticipated impact the proposed facility will have upon adequate collection and disposal capability within the planning area; and
(iv) the effect the facility will have upon waste generated within the state achieving the States 25% per capita waste disposal reduction goal.
Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs, r. 110-4-3-.04 (5) (d) (3). While the absence of such a procedure in the County’s 2002 SWMP demonstrates its inconsistency with current regulations, at the time the County’s plan was approved such a procedure was not required under DCA regulations. Appellants have not challenged the validity of the County’s SWMP or its seemingly unfettered discretion to determine whether a proposed solid waste facility is consistent with the plan. Accordingly, those issues are not before us in this appeal.
Second, I agree with the majority opinion that the Butts County decision must be overruled. In that case, the Court of Appeals applied OCGA § 12-8-31.1 (b), a statute requiring that a plan “identify those sites which are not suitable for solid waste handling facilities based on environmental and land use factors,” and concluded that Butts County was restricted to consideration of environmental and land use factors in determining whether a proposed facility was consistent with the county’s solid waste management plan. Butts County v. Pine Ridge Recycling, 213 Ga. App. 510, 512 (445 SE2d 294) (1994). Although the factors in OCGA § 12-8-31.1 (b) are applicable with regard to the issue of site suitability, the issue before the Court of Appeals in Butts County was whether the proposed facility was consistent with Butts County’s SWMP. The Court of Appeals confused site suitability with plan consistency, which require separate determinations under the Solid Waste Management Act and related Minimum Standards and Procedures for Solid Waste Management Regulations promulgated by the DCA. See OCGA § 12-8-24 (g) (requiring verification that proposed facility complies with local zoning and land use ordinance and is consistent with applicable solid waste management plan before issuance of permit); OCGA § 12-8-31.1 (b) (plan shall identify those sites that are not suitable for solid waste handling facilities); Minimum Planning Standards and Procedures, Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 110-4-3-.04 (5) (d) (1) (“Land Limitation Element,” requiring plan to include assessment and map identifying areas which, due to environmental limitations or land use factors are unsuitable for solid waste disposal facilities); id. at (5) (d) (3) (“Plan Consistency,” requiring plan to include procedure for determining consistency with plan). In this case, the County correctly recognized the separate determinations and issued letters to appellees stating *320that the proposed facility constituted an “allowable use on the subject property,” i.e., was suitable for the selected site, but denied that the proposed landfill is consistent with the County’s SWMP.
Decided March 13, 2006.
Smith, Gambrell & Russell, Stephen E. O’Day, Shannan F. Oliver, Gregory H. Kinnamon, for appellants.
Wilson, Brock & Irby, Richard W. Wilson, Jr., Robert M. Hoyland, for appellee.