Sprayberry v. Dougherty County

543 S.E.2d 29, 273 Ga. 503

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Decided: March 2, 2001
• Docket: S00A1683
• Status: Published

Opinions

Carley, Justice.

Margaret Sprayberry and Velinda Hobbs (Appellants) filed a mandamus action, seeking to compel the Board of Commissioners of Dougherty County (Board) to rescind the rezoning of neighboring property. After conducting an unreported bench trial, the trial court denied mandamus and entered judgment for the Board. Appellants appeal directly from the order of the trial court.

1. Although the Board does not contest Appellants’ right to bring a direct appeal, this Court has the duty to determine its jurisdiction over any case brought before it. Fullwood v. Sivley, 271 Ga. 248, 249 (517 SE2d 511) (1999). O S Advertising Co. v. Rubin, 267 Ga. 723, 724 (1) (482 SE2d 295) (1997) recognized a “bright-line rule” whereby, “[i]f the underlying subject-matter is zoning, an application for a discretionary appeal must be filed.” However, we also noted that this rule applies only if the appeal is from an order reviewing the zoning decision of an administrative agency. “Where a zoning case does not involve superior court review of an administrative decision, the trial court’s order does not come within the purview of OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1) and no application for appeal need be filed. [Cit.]” King v. City of Bainbridge, 272 Ga. 427, 428 (1) (531 SE2d 350) (2000). Bright-line rules are favored, but “we cannot consider the applicability of the application requirement in zoning cases apart from its statutory basis.” Harrell v. Little Pup Dev. & Constr., 269 Ga. 143, 144 (1) (498 SE2d 251) (1998). Appellants did not file an appeal to the superior court seeking review of the Board’s administrative decision to rezone the adjoining property. Instead, they brought a mandamus action directly against the Board, attacking the validity of the rezoning and seeking to prevent enforcement thereof. “Because the order appealed from in this case does not involve the review of the decision of a local administrative agency, we find the order is directly appeal-able under OCGA § 5-6-34 (a) ([6]).” King v. City of Bainbridge, supra at 428 (1).

2. The property was rezoned from single family residential to agricultural, subject to certain conditions on the owner’s operation of a hay bam on the premises. According to Appellants, this rezoning is, in effect, an illegal variance which permits an unauthorized commercial use on property within the agricultural classification.

The trial court’s order states that it is based upon a consideration of “all evidence,” which includes testimony as well as documentary evidence. In accordance with the presumption in favor of the regularity of court proceedings, we must assume that, in the absence of a transcript, the trial court’s findings are supported by sufficient competent evidence. Kirkendall v. Decker, 271 Ga. 189, 191 (516 SE2d 73) (1999). Thus, we also must assume that, based upon the evidence heard, the trial court was authorized to find that the rezoning was not improper. Where, as here, there is no transcript, we will conclude that “the evidence supported the trial court’s findings of fact which in turn support the judgment.” Redding v. Raines, 239 Ga. 865 (1) (239 SE2d 32) (1977).

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur, except Hines, J., who dissents.