443 S.E.2d 642 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1994
Culpepper, individually and as trustee of the trust of Fletcher, was the owner of two parcels of land annexed by the City of Cordele into its corporate limits. As owner, Culpepper brought a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court of Crisp County seeking to invalidate the annexation of the two parcels and seeking an injunction preventing enforcement of the annexation. She appealed to the Supreme Court from the judgment of the trial court validating the annexation. The Supreme Court transferred the appeal to this court.
The parcels of land owned by Culpepper were a portion of numerous unincorporated areas within the City of Cordele which the city annexed by ordinance as “unincorporated islands” pursuant to Article 6 of Chapter 36 of OCGA Title 36. OCGA §§ 36-36-90 through 36-36-92. Culpepper claims that two of the unincorporated areas annexed by the ordinance — the two unincorporated areas in which her parcels of land were located — could not be lawfully annexed by city ordinance as “unincorporated islands” pursuant to Article 6.
Under Article 6, the city was authorized, by passage of an ordinance, to “annex to the existing corporate limits thereof unincorporated islands which are contiguous to the existing limits at the time of such annexation upon compliance with the procedures set forth in this article and in accordance with the procedures provided in Article 1 of this chapter.” OCGA § 36-36-92 (a). An “unincorporated island” is defined in part as “[a]n unincorporated area in existence on January 1, 1991, and consisting of 50 acres or less with its aggregate external boundaries abutting the annexing municipality.” OCGA § 36-36-90 (3) (A). A “contiguous area” is defined as “any unincorporated area which, on or after January 1, 1991, had an aggregate external boundary directly abutting a municipal boundary. Any area shall be considered ‘contiguous’ if the aggregate external boundary would directly abut the municipal boundary if not otherwise separated, in whole or in part, from the municipal boundary by lands owned by the municipal corporation, by lands owned by a county, or by lands owned by this state or by the definite width of: (A) Any street or street right of way; (B) Any creek or river; or (C) Any right of way of a railroad or other public service corporation.” OCGA § 36-36-90 (1) (A), (B), (C).
In the annexation ordinance enacted December 15, 1992, the city, acting pursuant to Article 6, identified and annexed numerous separate areas of unincorporated land in a comprehensive effort to incorporate “unincorporated islands” contiguous to the existing corporate limits at the time of the annexation. The legal issues on appeal are identical as to each of the two annexed areas in which Culpepper’s
It is undisputed that the contested annexations involved two separate unincorporated areas in existence on January 1, 1991. Each area had aggregate external boundaries abutting the Cordele corporate limits and each area consisted of more than 50 acres. It is also undisputed that a railroad right-of-way traversed both unconnected areas dividing the two unincorporated areas into four separate areas, each containing less than fifty acres. The city contends the railroad right-of-way was already an incorporated area of the city at the time of annexation and had been an incorporated area prior to January 1, 1991. Accordingly, the city’s position is that the railroad right-of-way was an incorporated strip of land providing a municipal boundary which divided the two unincorporated areas exceeding fifty acres into four unincorporated areas, each containing less than fifty acres, each contiguous to the existing corporate limits, and each qualifying for annexation as an “unincorporated island” under Article 6. Culpepper contends the railroad right-of-way was an unincorporated strip of land traversing the two larger areas. Therefore, her position is that the two unincorporated areas were not divided by the railroad into four “unincorporated islands” of less than fifty acres. Rather, she contends the railroad right-of-way, along with the areas it traversed, formed two unincorporated areas in excess of fifty acres which the city could not lawfully annex by ordinance pursuant to Article 6.
It is undisputed that after being rechartered effective January 1, 1970, the City of Cordele boundaries, as set forth in the rechartering Act (Ga. L. 1969, pp. 3806-3855), did not include the railroad right-of-way at issue and that from January 1, 1970 through January 1, 1991 the railroad right-of-way was not annexed into the city by local act of
Although there was no evidence that the railroad right-of-way had been annexed into the city pursuant to legislative enactment or any method of municipal annexation under Chapter 36, the trial court concluded the railroad right-of-way became included within the Cordele corporate limits prior to January 1, 1991 by “de facto annexation.”
Since it was an unincorporated strip of land, the right-of-way and the two unincorporated areas it traversed formed unincorporated areas in excess of fifty acres which the city could not lawfully annex by the ordinance it passed pursuant to Article 6. Accordingly, to the extent the city ordinance attempted to annex Culpepper’s land, which was located within unincorporated areas exceeding 50 acres, it was invalid and unenforceable.
Judgment reversed.
Under OCGA § 36-36-5, annexation of “unincorporated islands” consisting of more than 50 acres is controlled by the procedures set forth in Article 3 of Chapter 36. See OCGA §§ 36-36-30 through 36-36-40. OCGA § 36-36-5 also provides that “any land of less than 50 acres in size located within such an unincorporated island may be annexed through the use of the annexation methods contained in Article 2, 3, or 4 of [Chapter 36] or by a local Act of the General Assembly.” It is undisputed that Culpepper’s land was annexed under Article 6 and not under any of these alternative procedures.
This is not a case where, but for the railroad right-of-way, an incorporated area would have been abutted on all boundaries by the municipal boundary, in which case the existence of the right-of-way would not prevent an otherwise lawful annexation under Article 6. See OCGA § 36-36-90 (1) (C). In the present case, the railroad right-of-way separates unincorporated areas from other unincorporated areas.
There was other evidence that the railroad right-of-way was not an incorporated portion of the city at the time Culpepper’s property was annexed. The annexation ordinance at issue included a general paragraph annexing all railroad rights-of-way within the corporate limits not previously annexed. Because of its conclusion that the right-of-way had been previously incorporated into the city, the trial court held that this paragraph of the ordinance was “mere surplusage.”
We have addressed appellant’s various enumerations of error to the extent necessary to decide the issues raised. Any enumerations not specifically addressed were either rendered moot by our decision or were not necessary to resolution of the issues.