Justices to Weigh Stormwater Charge and Zoning Amendment Dispute This Week

Supreme Court of Georgia to hear constitutional challenges surrounding disputed stormwater charge and zoning amendment disputes during April 15 and 16 oral argument sessions.

April 14, 2025 at 01:48 PM

On Tuesday and Wednesday, the Supreme Court of Georgia will hear oral arguments in at least two civil matters involving constitutional challenges. In addition to deciding the constitutionality of an Athens-Clarke County stormwater ordinance charge, justices are expected to decide a trio of appeals surrounding a McIntosh County zoning code amendment passed by its Board of Commissioners in September 2023.

Oral arguments are set to begin at 10 a.m. at the Nathan Deal Judicial Center in Atlanta on both days and will be livestreamed here.

Stormwater Charge Dispute

On Tuesday, appellant counsel Gary Gerrard of Lexington, Georgia, will team with Atlanta litigators Josh Belinfante, Alexander Denton and Miles C. Skedsvold of Robbins Alloy Belinfante Littlefield to argue before the justices on behalf of a group of property owners, including Homewood Associates Inc. Appellant counsel is challenging a decision by Western Judicial Circuit Superior Court Judge Lawton E. Stephens that favored Athens-Clarke County regarding a stormwater ordinance charge.

In an appellant brief, counsel alleged the trial court erroneously decided that existing case law prevented the property owners from arguing that the charge violated the uniformity clause of the Georgia Constitution. Contending its inconsistency with the high court’s historical interpretation and application of the uniformity clause, appellant counsel posit that the Supreme Court should overturn existing case law.

The appellants also are challenging the constitutionality of the charge on grounds it’s essentially a tax without proper compensation for taking private property. Seeking a reversal of the summary judgment granted to the county defendant, appellant counsel contend the charge is unproportional to the local government’s needs.

READ: APPELLANT BRIEF

Across the aisle, Buford attorney Thomas M. Mitchell of Carothers & Mitchell is expected to argue on behalf of the county appellee. In an appellee brief, Mitchell countered that the charge is valid and follows legal precedents.

Contending the property owners’ appeal is a policy debate, appellee counsel seeks affirmation of Stephens’ summary judgment grant on grounds existing case law does control the result in the matter. In addition to following the precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court in rejecting the property owners’ takings claims, appellee counsel briefed that the trial court applied the proper standards for cross-motions for summary judgment.