Court Opinion

ID: 9574460
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:05:10.391495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:36.231394
License: Public Domain

Fletcher, Justice,
dissenting.
1. (a) Appellants contend that the zoning ordinance is invalid because Bartow County did not hold a public hearing concerning a proposed ordinance that would establish policies and procedures governing the calling and conducting of public hearings at which a zoning ordinance is to be adopted. Using the logic employed by appellants, a separate ordinance establishing the policies and procedures for the public hearing must be enacted prior to any public hearing held for the purpose of considering the adoption of the proposed zoning ordinance.
(b) Section 13 of the proposed zoning ordinance and Section 13 of the ordinance that was eventually adopted are identical. I conclude that Section 13 contains provisions establishing policies and procedures which adequately govern the calling and conduct of public hearings. Printed copies of the proposed ordinance were made available to the general public prior to the scheduled public hearing. The Commissioner of Bartow County caused a notice of the hearing to be published in a newspaper of general circulation within Bartow County. This notice was published on January 9th, 16th, and 23rd of *1561986 and stated that “a public hearing will be held on January 27, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the main courtroom of the Bartow County Courthouse for the purpose of receiving public input concerning the proposed zoning ordinance.” The published notice satisfied the requirements of OCGA § 36-66-4 (a).
(c) The parties have stipulated that while, prior to the January 27 hearing, no separate public hearing was held on the proposed policies and procedures pertaining to the calling and conduct of hearings governing the exercise of the county’s zoning power, those policies and procedures were included in the zoning ordinance proposal for which the January 27 hearing was held.
(d) I do not interpret the ZPL as requiring a two-step procedure whereby two separate public hearings must be held by a local government that has not previously adopted a zoning ordinance: the first to receive public input on a proposed ordinance establishing procedures governing calling and conducting hearings on zoning decisions, and, after adopting such ordinance, a second hearing to receive public input as to the proposed zoning ordinance itself. The ZPL states that its intent is “to establish as state policy minimum procedures governing the exercise of [zoning] power” and to thereby assure that the general public is afforded due process when local governments exercise their zoning powers. OCGA § 36-66-2 (a). The notice provided by Bartow County prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance in question satisfied these minimum procedures and the record does not reflect that anyone was denied the right to be heard.
(e) The trial court found that the zoning ordinance in question was not invalid for any of the reasons submitted by appellants. I agree.
2. Appellants contend that a writ of mandamus will lie to compel the county commissioner to issue appellants a certificate of land use approval as is required by the rules and regulations of the Department of Natural Resources (“DNR”). However, even if the zoning ordinance is invalid, I must agree with the trial court that mandamus will not lie to compel a public officer to do an act not clearly commanded by law.
There is no general or local law that would require a county or its officials to issue the certificate of land use approval that is required by the DNR regulations prior to the issuance of a surface mining permit. Without such a duty imposed by law, a writ of mandamus will not lie to compel that such be issued. If there were no valid zoning ordinance and if the public official refuses to sign a land use approval certificate, appellants’ remedy, assuming it had met all of the other preconditions required by the DNR prior to the issuance of a surface mining permit, would be an appropriate action against the DNR, not the county.
*157Decided March 15, 1991 —
Reconsideration denied March 29, 1991.
Alston & Bird, G. Conley Ingram, Peter M. Degnan, Nancy Glenn, Archer & Howell, David G. Archer, for appellants.
Nelson & Bradley, G. Carey Nelson III, Jenkins & Eells, Frank E. Jenkins III, for appellees.
James F. Grubiak, amicus curiae.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Justice Benham joins in this dissent.