South Fulton attorney, UGA counsel brief council on zoning rules and mayoral veto role

Interim City Attorney Sarah Kelly and a policy advisor from the University of Georgia walked South Fulton city council members through the legal mechanics of local zoning decisions, stressing the risk that a court could invalidate an improperly handled rezoning.

Kelly laid out how the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law (OCGA 36‑66 series) defines a zoning decision, how the timing of public hearing advertisements triggers procedural rights, and how local rules and Robert's Rules intersect with council motions. She told council members that a motion that is not seconded or is not put before the body by the chair does not become a zoning decision, and that the statutory 15‑to‑45‑day advertising window for the required public hearing is what fixes the hearing date for appeals under state law.

The Georgia Institute of Government's Maribel Marlowe framed vetoes as a governance question: a mayoral veto can be legally available but is best used sparingly and with clear, policy‑based justification. Marlowe said that a veto can be a legitimate check or a cause of public distrust depending on how it is used and communicated. She recommended tying any veto rationale explicitly to adopted policy such as the comprehensive plan or zoning standards so the action is clearly defensible.

Council members asked detailed procedural questions about when public comment should be permitted, whether a planning commission meeting counts as the required public hearing, and whether council deliberation constitutes a separate action. Kelly repeated that state law requires only one public hearing but that South Fulton has routinely given residents two public hearing opportunities (planning commission and council). She cautioned that allowing additional public comment at the vote stage can create the appearance of unequal hearing opportunities and said it's possible — in extreme cases — for a court to set aside a zoning decision if the statutory process is not followed.

Why it matters: Zoning disputes are common and often end up in court. The presentation was intended to reduce procedural errors that can expose the city to appeals, delays and additional cost. Council members said they wanted clearer internal policies on whether and when the mayor should use veto authority on zoning items and asked staff and counsel to return with recommended rules for communication and for handling cases where applicants and staff submit changes late in the review process.

What's next: Attorney Kelly told council members she will draft guidance for council about interactions with applicants and best practices for ensuring public hearings and votes remain legally defensible. Councilmembers asked for a written recommendation on veto criteria tied to the comprehensive plan.