Oconee County Superior Court Judge H. Patrick Haggard has rejected the request by Townley Family Partnership LLLP for a review of the decision by North High Shoals Council to deny the Townley petition to deannex 175.8 acres from the city.
Haggard ordered that the Council’s ordinance passed on April 15, 2024, prohibiting the deannexation of any parcel of land in the Town exceeding 15 acres “should be affirmed.”
“The Town’s ordinance is legislative, and this court lacks the jurisdiction to review its merits,” Haggard found.
Haggard also found that Townley was not denied due process by the North High Shoals Town Council and that “Allowing Townley to deannex 11.5 percent of the Town’s acreage threatens the fragile, historical character of this small Town.”
Haggard denied the Town’s request that it be awarded attorney fees.
Hearing
Haggard issued his ruling dismissing the Townley request following a hearing on July 11 on a suit filed by Townley asking the court to “review of the final judgment rendered by the Town of North High Shoals” to deny Townley’s Petition for Deannexation of his property.
 |
| Haggard 7/11/2024 |
Townley had filed that petition on Nov. 21 of last year, and the Town Council made is decision to deny the petition on April 15. Townley filed suit on May 6.
Haggard issued his ruling on Sept. 16.
At the July 11 hearing, David Ellison, representing Townley, told Haggard that the first thing he had to decide is whether the Town’s denial of the deannexation request was “a quasi-judicial or legislative decision.”
Ellison argued that the Town decision to deny the Townley request was quasi-judicial.
Joe Reitman, attorney for North High Shoals, argued that the Town Council acted in a legislative capacity.
He also asked Haggard to dismiss the Townley suit because it was based on passage of House Bill 374, or “the Leaf Act,” which also included the deannexation component and a third item dealing with local regulation of fuels.
Reitman said the bill violates the one subject matter clause of the Georgia Constitution.
Judge’s Finding On Townley Claim
Haggard said that the ordinance passed by the North High Shoals Council was a legislative decision that referenced but was not limited to the Townley deannexation petition.
“(T)he Ordinance states the dangers of deannexation to this small community in general terms,” he wrote. “The minor reference to Townley’s request does nothing more than meets its obligations” under the new law.
“As a legislative decision,” Haggard wrote, "this Court’s review is limited to constitutional challenges."
“Townley contends the process of creating the Ordinance denied it the right to due process,” Haggard wrote. “A close examination of this claim shows that the due process violation requires a finding that the Town’s decision was a quasi-judicial one.”
Haggard found the reverse.
Distinction Does Not Matter
Haggard said that even if the Town’s decision were judged to be quasi-judicial, the Town’s Ordinance satisfies the standard for denying a request for deannexation.
“Contrary to Townley’s assertion,” Haggard wrote, “the Town presented evidence that its ability to exist in the future may be in jeopardy with deannexation.”
Haggard acknowledged, as argued by Ellison, that the “Townley’s property does not currently provide significant revenue” to the Town of North High Shoals.
“Townley, however, has not attempted to show the land is unsuitable for integration into the Town,” Haggard wrote. “Additionally, while the land is not presently being used for any purpose, Townley has been less than forthcoming about its future plans for the 175 acres."
“Thus, the Town may consider possible future revenue that might be derived from the land,” Haggard wrote.
Judge’s Finding On Town’s Claim
Reitman, in the July 11 hearing, argued that House Bill 374 was in violation of the Georgia Constitution’s prohibition against enacting bills that concern more than one subject.
 |
| Haggard 7/11/2024 |
Haggard, however, citing an earlier court ruling, said “The test of whether an Act or constitutional amendment violates the multiple subject matter rule is whether all of the parts of the Act or of the constitutional amendment are germane to the accomplishment of a single objective.”
With House Bill 374,” Haggard wrote, “the general subject concerns laws that govern municipalities.”
“Georgia courts have typically found such broad general subjects to include different issues within that subject," he said.
“(T)he passage of the deannexation statute and the leaf blower statute under the same action did not offend the Georgia Constitution,” Haggard wrote.
Final Comment
Haggard ended his review of the case with a two-paragraph summary.
“As a final matter,” Haggard wrote. “Townley was not denied due process by the Town.”
“Townley focuses on the legal notice for the Jan. 22, 2024, meeting, which indicated Townley was planning to develop a high-density Planned Development that would require additional sewer infrastructure.”
“Although denying this plan, Townley has not been clear about its future plans for the 175.76 acres,” he continued.
“Townley had the opportunity to correct any error in the legal notice during the hearing.,” Haggard said. “Townley was permitted to present its evidence as to the minimal impact it believed deannexing the 175.76 acres would have on the Town.”
“Ultimately, the Town decided that any significant deannexation would be a danger to the fabric of the small community,” he wrote.
“The Town's decision did not make it biased,” according to Haggard. “The Ordinance was forward looking."
“Townley may not like the Ordinance,” Haggard wrote, “but that does not mean it was denied procedural due process, and the evidence before the undersigned indicates Townley was accorded the requisite due process.”
No comments:
Post a Comment