Sweet City Landfill, LLC v. Elbert County, A16A1794

Background

Sweet City Landfill, LLC and individual owners sued Elbert County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief: they argued no special-use permit was required, attacked the county's Solid Waste Disposal Ordinance as unconstitutional, and claimed a vested right to operate a landfill.
The superior court granted summary judgment to Sweet City on dormant Commerce Clause and equal protection grounds, declared vested development rights, and issued a temporary injunction; the court rejected the county's exhaustion-of-remedies argument.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted discretionary review, held the trial court was wrong to reach vested-rights and equal protection claims because Sweet City had not obtained a final administrative decision, but said the facial constitutional challenge to the ordinance was not barred by exhaustion and remanded to apply the Pike balancing test.
On remand Elbert County amended the ordinance and moved to dismiss the facial challenge as moot; the trial court granted the motion and dismissed the remaining claim.
Sweet City filed a direct appeal to the Court of Appeals; Elbert County moved to dismiss, arguing this appeal required an application for discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35 because it concerns review of local administrative/zoning decisions.
The Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal for failure to pursue the required discretionary-appeal process, citing Georgia precedent that appeals involving zoning/administrative decisions must proceed by application.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the facial constitutional challenge remained live after the county amended the ordinance	The amendment did not moot the facial challenge; trial court should decide merits per Supreme Court remand	Amendment rendered the facial challenge moot so the case should be dismissed	Appeal dismissed for lack of proper appellate procedure (required discretionary application); underlying remand dispute mootness not reached on appeal
Whether Sweet City could litigate vested-rights and equal protection claims without final administrative decision	Sweet City argued trial court properly reached vested-rights and equal protection claims	County argued Sweet City failed to exhaust administrative remedies and no final decision was issued	Georgia Supreme Court previously held trial court erred to decide those claims because no final administrative decision existed
Whether exhaustion-of-remedies applies to facial constitutional challenges to zoning/ordinances	Sweet City maintained facial challenge not subject to exhaustion	County contended exhaustion applied to land-use disputes	Supreme Court held facial challenge is not subject to exhaustion and remanded to apply Pike balancing test
Whether direct appeal to Court of Appeals was procedurally proper	Sweet City filed a direct appeal under OCGA § 5-6-34	County argued appeal must proceed by application under OCGA § 5-6-35 because zoning/administrative subject matter requires discretionary review	Court of Appeals dismissed the direct appeal for failure to file an application for discretionary appeal under OCGA § 5-6-35

Key Cases Cited

Elbert County v. Sweet City Landfill, LLC, 297 Ga. 429 (Georgia Supreme Court) (remand on facial challenge; exhaustion and vested-rights analysis)
Rebich v. Miles, 264 Ga. 467 (establishes need for application where underlying subject matter is listed in OCGA § 5-6-35)
Trend Dev. Corp. v. Douglas County, 259 Ga. 425 (zoning decisions are local administrative actions requiring appeals by application)
Fulton County v. Congregation of Anshei Chesed, 275 Ga. 856 (confirms Trend principle)
O. S. Advertising Co. of Ga., Inc. v. Rubin, 267 Ga. 723 (facial constitutional challenges to zoning ordinances are subject to the same appeals rule)
Hamryka v. City of Dawsonville, 291 Ga. 124 (OCGA § 5-6-35 applies even when review sought via declaratory judgment)
Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U.S. 137 (1970) (test for balancing local burden against interstate commerce interests)