Hamryka v. City of Dawsonville, 291 Ga. 124

Background

Appellants West and Helen Hamryka own real property in Dawson County; Hamryka operates Hidden Still Farm on the property.
A neighboring owner sought to rezone land for a motorsports park, which the Dawsonville City Council approved.
Appellants filed a nine-count Superior Court action challenging the rezoning; the court granted summary judgment to appellees on three counts.
The appeals were initially dismissed for failure to comply with discretionary appeal procedures but were reinstated for briefing on applicability of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1).
The Supreme Court holds these appeals fall under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), requiring discretionary appeal procedures, and are dismissed for failure to do so.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) apply to review of a local zoning decision?	Appellants contend it does not because they sought mandamus/declaratory relief.	Defendants assert the review falls within discretionary appeal provisions regardless of the form of relief.	Yes; OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) applies.
Is the appeal governed by discretionary procedures because the superior court reviewed a local administrative decision?	Appellants argue they participated but were not formally parties; still covered by § 5-6-35 (a) (1).	The review is within discretionary appeal scope since the superior court reviewed an administrative decision.	Yes; discretionary procedures required.
Are Appellants excluded from § 5-6-35 (a) (1) because they were not actual parties to the administrative proceeding?	King v. Bainbridge suggests non-parties may avoid discretionary review.	Participation in the administrative process suffices; non-parties may still be subject to § 5-6-35 (a) (1).	No; participation suffices—discretionary review applies.
Does the presence of mandamus/declaratory action remove the case from § 5-6-35 (a) (1)?	Mandamus/declaratory relief should defeat § 5-6-35 (a) (1) applicability.	§ 5-6-35 (a) (1) governs review regardless of the pleading form.	No; still within § 5-6-35 (a) (1).
What is the controlling interpretation of 'parties' in the administrative proceeding for § 5-6-35 (a) (1)?	Appellants were not formally named parties to the proceeding.	The term covers those who participated in the administrative process or could have, even if not formally named.	Participation suffices; § 5-6-35 (a) (1) applies.

Key Cases Cited

Ladzinske v. Allen, 280 Ga. 264 (2006) (discretionary appeal required when appeal concerns superior court's review of an administrative decision)
Ferguson v. Composite State Bd. of Medical Examiners, 275 Ga. 255 (2002) (mandamus relief attacking validity of local administrative decision constitutes review under § 5-6-35 (a) (1))
King v. City of Bainbridge, 272 Ga. 427 (2000) (distinguishes between parties to an administrative proceeding and direct appeals when no administrative proceeding occurred)
Fulton County v. Congregation of Anshei Chesed, 275 Ga. 856 (2002) (explanation that a party to administrative decision cannot avoid § 5-6-35 by improper forum)