Burke County v. Askin
327 Ga. App. 116
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Board of Burke County abandoned five roads in Pineview Subdivision under OCGA § 32-7-2(b)(1).
- Askin (and Tiger, Inc.) owned lots adjoining the roads and challenged the abandonment.
- Superior Court reversed for three roads; County sought discretionary review, arguing error.
- Supreme Court in Askin I held County had discretion to abandon roads and the standard is limited to review of agency action.
- In 2011 the Board adopted a new resolution abandoning all five roads after notice and a public hearing.
- Board found the roads were no longer used by the public and abandonment was in the public interest; evidence included minimal development and high repair costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board’s abandonment had a rational basis | Askin contends the Board’s findings were arbitrary and unsupported. | Board acted within discretion; findings supported by evidence of ceased use and cost concerns. | Board had a rational basis; no arbitrary or capricious action. |
| Whether the superior court properly applied the standard of review for agency weight of the evidence | Court should substitute its judgment for the Board’s on factual weight. | Court may not substitute its weight-of-evidence judgment; reviews only initial decision. | Correctly affirmed the Board’s initial decision; no substitution of judgment. |
| Whether there was no rational basis for abandoning three of the roads | Board failed to show a rational basis for abandonment of three roads. | There was rational basis given minimal public use and high maintenance costs. | There was a rational basis for abandoning those roads. |
| Whether public purpose requirement was met where roads were not disrepair-related | Public purpose requires ongoing maintenance; nonmaintenance cannot justify abandonment. | Abandonment may proceed when public use ceases for reasons other than disrepair. | Public purpose requirement satisfied; cessation of use justifies abandonment regardless of disrepair. |
| Whether the County abused its discretion by not compensating Askin for a taking | Abandonment constitutes a taking requiring compensation. | Abandonment is discretionary and not a taking requiring compensation. | No taking requiring compensation; Board did not abuse discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Askin v. Burke County, 291 Ga. 697 ((2012)) (Askin I clarifies county discretion to abandon roads and limited scope of review)
- Carnes v. Charlock Investments (USA), Inc., 258 Ga. 771 ((1988)) (illustrates general evidentiary and discretionary review principles)
- Bd. of Regents of the Univ. System of Ga. v. Hogan, 298 Ga. App. 454 ((2009)) (punctuation and footnotes omission; appellate review context)
- Scarborough v. Hunter, 293 Ga. 431 ((2013)) (procedural standards in governmental decision-making)
- Sawyer v. Reheis, 213 Ga. App. 727 ((1994)) (statutory interpretation and administrative discretion context)
- Smith v. Bd. of Commrs. of Athens-Clarke County, 264 Ga. 316 ((1994)) (standards for administrative decisions and public interest)
- Torbett v. Butts County, 271 Ga. 521 ((1999)) (administrative discretion and public road considerations)
- Scarborough v. Hunter, 293 Ga. 431 ((2013)) (reiterates discretionary review framework)