Forsyth County v. Georgia Transmission Corp., 280 Ga. 664

Summary

The Supreme Court of Georgia held that a Forsyth County ordinance requiring county approval before construction of a high-voltage electric transmission line unconstitutionally affected Georgia Transmission Corporation's delegated power of eminent domain. The court affirmed the judgment enjoining enforcement of the ordinance and dismissed as moot the cross-appeal concerning the ordinance's alleged violation of the Uniformity Clause.

Holdings

1. The ordinance violated the Georgia Constitution's Home Rule Act because it authorized Forsyth County to deny or modify transmission-line projects and thereby allowed the county to substitute its judgment for that of the condemning utility regarding the necessity and suitability of the transmission corridor.
2. Forsyth County's zoning authority did not prevail over the constitutional limitation barring county action affecting the exercise of eminent domain.
3. Macon Assn. did not require GTC to comply with the challenged local zoning ordinance because the legislature clearly delegated eminent-domain authority to electric membership corporations.
4. The cross-appeal was dismissed because the trial court had not distinctly ruled on the issue and the Supreme Court's decision on the eminent-domain ground made it unnecessary to reach the alternative constitutional challenge.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Forsyth County's power-transmission-line overlay zoning ordinance was an action affecting the exercise of Georgia Transmission Corporation's delegated power of eminent domain and therefore outside the county's Home Rule authority under Article IX, Section II, Paragraph I(c)(6) of the Georgia Constitution.
2. Whether the county's zoning authority under Article IX, Section II, Paragraph IV prevailed over the Home Rule limitation concerning eminent domain.
3. Whether Georgia Transmission Corporation was subject to local zoning regulations under the reasoning of Macon Assn. for Retarded Citizens v. Macon-Bibb County Planning & Zoning Commission.
4. Whether the ordinance's alleged preemption by OCGA § 22-3-160.1 and resulting Uniformity Clause issue should be decided on the cross-appeal.

Disposition

other