The county is appealing a lower court's decision that allows a proposal to operate a landfill to move forward.
The county argues the trial court was wrong to rule the that its solid waste management violates the Constitution, and to deny its motion to dismiss the lawsuit because the landfill company failed to file it in time.
But Sweet City Landfill LLC, which wants to operate a 270-acre landfill on one of three sites in Elbert County, argues otherwise.
The court's Public Information Office provided these details of the case:
FACTS: In this somewhat complex case, Sweet City Landfill, LLC, wants to operate a 270-acre landfill on one of three sites in Elbert County. Sweet City sought a "local compliance letter" from Elbert County, which would state that the solid waste landfill satisfied local zoning laws and the local solid waste management plan. Under the Georgia Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Act, the local compliance letter is a prerequisite for then applying to the state Environmental Protection Division. In November 2009, Sweet City filed with the County a document called "Application and Agreed Minimum Operating Conditions," also known as a "Host Agreement," which included a request for a Special Use Permit. Subsequently, Sweet City sued after the County agreed to proceed with a waste disposal facility operated by Plant Granite, LLC. According to Sweet City, the County exempted Plant Granite from the County's solid waste ordinance and determined it did not require a Special Use Permit from Plant Granite. In October 2011, Sweet City and the County entered into an agreement to put on hold their legal disputes while they sought common ground on Sweet City's Special Use Permit application.
At a meeting July 9, 2012, the Elbert County Board of Commissioners voted 5-to-0, "not to enter into a 'Host Agreement with Sweet City Landfill, LLC" and to terminate the agreement to put on hold the legal disputes. Less than three weeks later, the County adopted a zoning ordinance which would essentially preclude Sweet City's planned landfill. Sweet City apparently did not try to appeal the July 9, 2012 vote in superior court, nor did it seek further relief from the County. Rather, in March 2013, it again sued the County, challenging its solid waste ordinance as unconstitutional for violating the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Sweet City also sought a writ of "mandamus" to force the County to allow Sweet City to proceed with the landfill. The County then filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing the trial court lacked authority because Sweet City had failed to appeal the decision to the superior court within 30 days of the Board of Commissioners' July 2012 vote, and because the landfill company went straight to court without first exhausting its administrative remedies, such as appealing to the County. Sweet City then filed a motion for "summary judgment," which a court grants upon determining a jury trial is unnecessary because the facts are undisputed and the law falls squarely on the side of one of the parties.
On Sept. 11, 2014, the Elbert County Superior Court ruled in Sweet City's favor and issued an order finding that the County's solid waste ordinance violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and that the July 9, 2012 action by the Board of Commissioners deprived Sweet City of the right to Equal Protection under both the U.S. and Georgia constitutions. The trial court determined that the July 9, 2012 Board action was a "siting decision" that required notice to the public under Georgia law, and that the public had not been notified. As a result, the trial court found the July 9, 2012 vote was void from the beginning and was "thus unappealable." The superior court implied that the Board's action was not final, concluding that it "only declined to enter into a host agreement with Sweet City and took no action with respect to Sweet City's Special Use Permit application." Therefore, Sweet City had not exhausted all administrative remedies, as there were matters to be taken up beyond the host agreement. However, the trial court denied the County's motion to dismiss the case, ruling that Sweet City did not have to exhaust its administrative remedies because doing so would be futile. The County and county officials now appeal to the state Supreme Court.
ARGUMENTS: The County's attorneys argue the trial court made a number of errors, beginning with its denial of the County's motion to dismiss the case. "The trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Appellees [i.e. Sweet City] failed to appeal the Board's adverse decision within the 30-day period" required by state law. This decision was "appealable," the attorneys argue and "a superior court lacks jurisdiction when such an appeal is filed beyond the time allowed by law." The trial court erred in concluding that the decision was "unappealable." At its July 9, 2012 meeting, the Board of Commissioners denied the Host Agreement, which was tantamount to denying Sweet City's request for a special use permit and a local compliance letter. Sweet City then waited eight months before filing their complaint challenging the ordinance. Furthermore, the trial court should have dismissed the lawsuit because Sweet City failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, "as doing so would not have been futile," the attorneys argue. "Because they failed to do so, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction." A "futile" act only occurs when the only administrative remedy involves seeking a review "that ultimately would result in a decision on the same issue by the same body." "The fact that [an applicant] was pessimistic about its prospects for obtaining a special use permit, even if that pessimism was justified, does not prove that exhaustion of remedies would have been 'futile' as this Court has defined that term," the attorneys argue. Among other errors, the trial court erred in finding that the County's solid waste management ordinance violates the Commerce Clause and that the Board's action violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Commerce Clause "forbids a state or municipality from impeding the flow of goods and services across state borders, or from favoring in-state economic interests at the expense of out-of-state economic interests." Contrary to the trial court's conclusion, the ordinance does not create an absolute ban on landfills. "The solid waste management ordinance has no conditions which favor or even contemplate the consideration of in-state versus out-of-state interests," the attorneys argue. The trial court was also wrong in determining that the Equal Protection Clause was violated by the Board's "alleged preferential treatment of another 2009 landfill applicant, Plant Granite, LLC. The evidence shows that Sweet City's proposal was not "similarly situated," "identical in all relevant respects," or "essentially the same size," and would not have "an equivalent impact on the community" as Plant Granite's proposal. Even if certain provisions of the ordinance could be considered unconstitutional, the trial court erred in striking entire sections of the ordinance, the attorneys argue.
Sweet City's attorneys argue the trial court did have the authority to deny the County's motion to dismiss the lawsuit. While the County's "revisionary history of its decision on July 9, 2012," is that it denied Sweet City's application for a special use permit, the trial court correctly "declined to accept Elbert County's contentions that a refusal to 'enter into a Host Agreement' is tantamount to a denial of the special use permit." The County's decision not to enter into a contract or "Host Agreement" was a legislative decision, the attorneys argue, and before a board may exercise its legislative authority, state law requires that it hold a public hearing. "Elbert County's failure to properly [notify] and hold a public hearing renders the siting decision [unauthorized]," the attorneys argue. The trial court also correctly determined that exhausting its administrative remedies would have been futile. "Elbert County adopted zoning to prevent Sweet City from developing a landfill on its property." The state Supreme Court "should agree that exhaustion of administrative remedies under these facts would have been futile and the writ of mandamus is required if justice is to be done." The trial court correctly found that the ordinance violates the Commerce Clause as it "discriminates against interstate commerce by placing the entire burden of waste disposal on the rest of the state and country." "If not struck, localities will adopt similar bans and future landfills will concentrate in those Georgia communities where bans have not been enacted," the attorneys argue. The trial court also correctly ruled that Sweet City's right to equal protection was violated by the County's refusal to exempt it from the solid waste ordinance while exempting Plant Granite's "similarly situated proposed facility." "Elbert County should have exempted Sweet City from the special use permitting requirement in the solid waste ordinance and should have issued the local compliance letter rather than discriminate against Sweet City," the attorneys contend.
Attorneys for Appellants (County): Bill Daughtry, Brandon Bowen, Robert Walker, Normal Fletcher, A. Franklin Beacham III, Lee Carter
Attorneys for Appellees (Sweet City): Andrew Welch, III, Lajuana Ransaw
http://accesswdun.com/article/2015/3/285778