PAULDING COUNTY  PUBLIC HEARING  000 -  -BOARD of COMMISSIONERS-  LONING BOARD OF APPEALS  5:30 P.M.  NOVEMBER 12, 2024    PAULDING COUNTY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS November 12, 2024  5:30 P.M. at the Watson Government Complex, 240 Constitution Blvd.,  Dallas, GA in the 2nd Floor B.O.C. Meeting Room  AGENDA  1. Review minutes from August 13, 2024 meeting.  2. 2024-07-V (APPEAL): Application by BLOOM PARHAMI LLP.requesting to appeal the Community Development Director's July 30, 2024 decision denying vested rights entitling Pinehill Investments, LTD from Ordinance 2024-05 for PRD (Planned Residential Development) Sheffield Park. Property is located in Land Lots 783, 786, 798 - 802, 856- 857 & 859; District 3; Section 3; located along the east and west sides of Cartersville Hwy, 3. 2024-08-V (APPEAL): Application by BLOOM PARHAM: LLP.requesting to appeal the Community Development Director's August 8, 2024 decision denying vested rights entitling Pinehill Investments, LTD from Ordinance 2024-05 for PRD (Planned Residential Development) Sheffield Highlands North. Property is located in Land Lots 1019-1022 & 1067-1070; District 3; Section 3; located along the east sides of Shady Grove Church Road. 4. 2024-09-V (APPEAL): Application by GEORGE TOMAS HOMES / THOMAS DOZIER, requesting to appeal the Community Development Director's August 8, 2024 decision denying vested rights for PRD (Planned Residential Development) The Park at Ansleigh Farms PHS 2 pursuant to Ordinance 2024-05. Property is located in Land Lots 1139 &1171; District 3; Section 3; located west of Old Cartersville Road and east of Old County  north of Sawmill Path. POST 4,  POST 4.  Farm Road. POST 4.    APPLICATION  2024-07-V (APPEAL)    WAIVER, MODIFICATION and APPEALS APPLICATION Paulding County Development Waiver Review Committee Paulding County Planning and Zoning Division * Dallas, Ga 30157 * 770-443-7601  Name of Applicant /1 Representative Bloom Parham, LLP Address 977 Ponce de Leon Ave, NE  NA 30306 Zip.  Home Phone  City. Atlanta  State_ Georgia  Email poom@bom-aw.com: peaton@bogm-aiw.com Phone (404) )577-7710  Signature of Applicant/ / Representative Signed, sealed and delivered int the presence of: Elicly  A OTAR PUBLIC  My commission expires_ 08/3120z4  Name(s) ofTitleholder(s). Pinehill Investmienislaido" Address 4200 Northside Parkway, NW OUNTY. Email wDh2@pinehilinvestments.com Signature ofTitleholder(s). HHLL Signed, sealed and deliveredi int th! presence OFVETTE RENAUD  NA Zip. 30327  Homel Phone  City Atlanta  State Georgia  Phone_ (404)237-4675  Netary Public- State of Georgia Cobb County My Cemmission Expires Aug 30, 2026  commission My  MHYAd Public' Notary Present Zoning District(s). PRD  expires 8-30-2024  Site Acreage ofA Application 382.15 Acreage ofTitleholder(s), 382.15  Development Reg. Article# 1.5.4, Ordinance 2024-05. Tax Parcel I.D. Number(s). 062.1.3.001.0000  Land Lot(s). 783, 786, 798, 799, 800, 801, 802,8 856, 857,859, District(s). 3 Ist the property int the Hiram City Limits? No  3 Section(s).  (yes or no)  Location of property. Cartersville Highway and Sawmill Path  Nearest intersections, (ie. east/ west side ofgiven road and southnorth ofg given road) and address ifavailable  Reason for waiver, modification, or appeal requested, along with copies ofsupportingi information or documents, ifapplicable:  See attached letter to Zoning Board of Appeals.  EIVE AUG 19 RECD  **StaffUse Only** ZBA  Case# 2024-01-VCAPpw)y Hearing Date_ Noypmbl 2,2024  Approved Disapproved Tabled  Conditions Reason Date  12-17    ZONING ANALYSIS  2024-07-V( (APPEAL)  Applicant: Bloom Parham LLP Titleholder: Pinehill Investments LTD Land Lot: 783, 786, 798-802, 856-857 & 859 Present Zoning: PRD (Planned Residential Development)  Date: November 12, 2024 District: 3 Section: 3  Requesting: to appeal the decision denying  vested rights entitling Pinehill Investments, LTD from Ordinance 2024-05 for Sheffield Park.  Post4  L.L.726  L.L.727 District: 3  LA Dist!!  L.L.729 Section: 3  District: District: 3  L.L.730 LL.731 District: 3 District: 3 Section: 3 Section: 3  Section: Section: 3 Section: 3  Sedon:3 District: 3  ANDS  L.L.787 3District 3 3Section: 3 - L.L. 798 Dstrict: 3  785 trict: 3 ction: 3  L.L. 784 District: 3 Section: 3 LL 801 District.3 Sectiona 3 Pending LL856 District3 Section:3 L.L.873 District: 3  LL 783 District 3 District: Section: 3 Section: 3  L.L. 782  Section: 3 L.L.799 District 3 Section3 1 District: a Pending LL -  LL 600  LL802 District 3  Section: 3 POROTAVTAPPEAU!! Section 3 2024-07-V (APPEAL) Section:3  /  LL 859 Districts 3 Section: 3 SAWMILL PATH L.L. 870 District: Section: L//931 DistNct:3 Section/3  LL.857 District 3 Section: 3  L.L.8 855 District: 3 Section: 3  L.L.872  874 District: 3 Section: 3 Section: 3  L.L.875 District: 3  Sst Sec/n:3 7930 3  928 District: 3 Section: 3  L.L.927  L.L.926  District: 3 District: 3 Section: 3 Section: 3  3  0  1,000  2,000  4,000 Feet  F    INRD  22  0  1,000  2,000  4,000 Feet    -   &  0    MOlpoolsioH, OSIM  ViDi0a9' aI'SINEWISBANIT TIHINId >BVAQHHS    BLOOM PARHAM  Simon H. Bloom bloomebloon-lawz.com 404.-577-7710  ECEIVET AUG 19 RECD  August 16, 2024  AUG  VIA EMAILAND  PEDERALEXPRESS: OVERNIGHT DELIVERY  am.lppmamn@paulding.gou) Zoning Board of Appeals Paulding County c/o Ann Lippmann 240 Constitution Boulevard Dallas, Georgia 30132  Re: Appeal of Decision Denying Vested Rights Entitling Pinehill Investments, LTD ("Pinehill") to Exemption from Ordinance 2024-05 for Sheffield Park  (the Property")  Dear Ms. Lippmann and the Zoning Board of Appeals:  This firm represents Pinehill with respect to the above-referenced matter. We are inr receipt of Ms. Lippmann'sl letter datedJuly 30, 2024 (the Decision"), finding that the Property is subject to Ordinance 2024-05 (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance conflicts with Pinehill's vested rights, and therefore cannot be applied to the Property. In I. The Decision is an Erroneous Application ofGeorgialaw. The Decision is based on the finding that "none of the instances identified in Brown V. Carson, 313 Ga. 621 (2022) have been met." This finding isi incorrect. Georgia's body of law governing a landowner's acquisition of vested rights is well developed. Al landowner can acquire vested rights to initiate a specific use of a property by: "(1) issued building and other permits, (2) the law in existence at the time a landowner properly files an application for a permit, (3) formally and informally approved development plans, or (4) official assurances that a building permit will probably issue." Brown V. Carson, 313 Ga. 621, 622-23 (2022). The latter two paths to vested rights, formally or informally approved development plans and reliance on official assurances, must be supported by making expenditures or incurring obligations in pursuit of the development. WMM Properties, Inc., 255 Ga. 436, 439 (1986). This case falls squarely within the third category of vested rights, SO the Decision is in error  addition, the Ordinance itselfi is illegal and void.  and in violation of Georgia law.  Bloom Parham, LLP 977 Ponce de Leon Ave., NE Atlanta, Georgia 30306 404.577.7710 phone 404.577.7715 fax www.bloom-law.com    Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Ann Lippmann  Page2  II. Pinehill has Vested Rights to an Exemption from the Ordinance.  A. Facts Establishing Pinehill's Vested Rights.  Pinehill obtained a rezoning of the Property to PRD and B-1, which included formal approval of a site plan for the Property to allow for construction of a 931 lot single-family residential subdivision (the "PRD Development Plan"). Pinehill expended substantial sums to pursue development of the Property. As detailed below, in light of the formal approvals, the assurances received from the County, and expenditures toward development of the Property, Pinehill is entitled to an exception from enforcement of the Ordinance against the Property. The following facts support  Pinehillsentitlement to vested rights for the Property:  In 2004, Pinehill submitted for Development of Regional Impact review for the Property. GRTA issued a Notice of Decision on October 18, 2004 approving the DRI.1 Based on the GRTA Notice of Decision, Pinehill and the County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), which set forth an agreement with respect to the traffic improvements required for Sheffield Highlands and the Property.2 In the MOU, Pinehill agreed that it would pay up to $4,500,000 towards the traffic system enhancements described in the GRTA Notice of Decision. The MOU set forth payment terms based on the number of lots for Sheffield Highlands and the Property, which contemplated a total of 2,851 lots. This agreement, including the representations by the County regarding the number oflots available for Sheffield Highlands and the Property, provided additional assurances to Pinehill for development of the Property.  On January 25, 2005, the County approved: (1) Rezoning case 2005-03-Z, which rezoned 102.13 acres of the Property from R-2 to PRD, with 18 stipulations and allowed for a 306 lot single-family residential subdivision; (2) Rezoning case 2005-04-Z, which rezoned 71.7 acres from R-2 to B-1 for retail and commercial development; and (3) Rezoning case 2005-05-Z, which rezoned 208.32 acres of the Property from R-2 to PRD for a 625 lot single-family residential subdivision.3 Through this rezoning, the County formally approved the PRD Development Plan for the project. The Board of Commissioners included in the conditions of the rezoning that the developer adhere to  the MOU.  Inz 2018, the County provided a Certificate of Zoning confirming the PRD zoning for the Property and that the DRI review remained in full effect for development of the  properties.4  Exhibit 1, Notice of Decision, DRI 588, Sheffield Park, 2] Exhibit 2, Memorandum ofUnderstanding (Jan. 25, 2005).  31 Exhibit 3, Paulding County Board of Commissioners, Board Meeting Minutes (Jan. 25, 2005). 41 Exhibit 4, Certificate of Zoning Letter from Chris G. Robinson, Planning & Zoning Division Manager,  Paulding County (Feb. 12, 2018).    Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Ann Lippmann  Page3  Pinehill incurred significant expenses and has taken action in reliance on the County's formal approvals of the PRD Development Plan and other assurances regarding development of the Property. Pinehill spent approximately $122,000 in  additional costs to date to pursue development ofthe Property.  B. Pinehill Obtained Formal Approval of the PRD Development Plan and Relied on that Approval, Entitling Pinehill to Vested Rights. As set forth above, a landowner can acquire vested rights to initiate a specific use of aj property by: (1)obtaining building and other permits, (2) thel lawi in existence ati the time a landowner properly files an application for a permit, (3) relying on formally and informally approved development plans, and/or (4) relying on official assurances that a building permit will probably issue. WMM Properties, Inc. V. Cobb Cnty., 255 Ga. 436, 438-39 (1986). However, formally or informally approved development plans and reliance on official assurances must be supported by making expenditures or incurring obligations in pursuit ofthe development. WMM Properties, Inc.. 255 Ga. at4 439. For the third category of vested rights--reliance on formally and informally approved development plans-the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in DeKalb Cnty.V. Chapel Hill, Inc., 232 Ga. 238 (1974), is directly on point. In that case, the plaintiff applied for approval of a Community Unit Development Plan, which included a detailed plan with specific areas for various land uses within the plan. The Community Unit Development Plan was approved by the Board of Adjustments (because a rezoning was not required by the ordinance at the time), and the plaintiff expended substantial sums in reliance on the Community Unit Development Plan. The Georgia Supreme Court found that this approval and reliance was sufficient to establish the plaintiffs vested rights. The Georgia Supreme Court in WMM, the seminal case on the vested rights  doctrine in Georgia, cited Chapel Hill for the rule that:  (c) Right to Rely on Approved Development Plan. (Formally approved. A landowner has a right to develop the property pursuant to a development plan duly approved by the county zoning authority pursuant to powers delegated to it by the county commission even though the development plan varied the existing zoning, where the landowner had expended large sums of money in furtherance of the development and has dedicated land for use as parks and schools in reliance upon its approved  development plan.  WMM Properties, Inc., 255 Ga. at 438-39.  The Decision fails to appreciate that a rezoning to PRD is necessarily a formal approval of a development plan. Paulding County's PRD section of the UDO makes clear that a rezoning to PRD is formal approval of a development plan. The UDO contains an entire section on "Site Development Plan" requirements, which must be submitted at the time of application to PRD. UDO $ 1-20.08. Importantly, the UDO provides that Tijndividual lot and dwelling sizes are to be approved when specific plans    Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Ann Lippmann  Page4  are submitted to the governing authority." UDO $ 1-20. Moreover, the UDO provides that "[m]ajor deviation from these detailed plans have to be re-submitted to the governing authority for approval." UDO $ 1-20. Therefore, the PRD Site Development Plan is the governing document for a PRD zoned property, which is formally approved  by the Board ofCommissioners at the time of rezoning to PRD.  Pinehill obtained formal approval of the below PRD Development Plan through  the rezoning of the Property to PRD5:  PZONING RESIDENTIAL  NING  The PRD Development Plan includes the following Project Summary:  5Exhibit 5, PRD Plan.    Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Ann Lippmann  Pages 5  PROJECT SUMMARY S)TOTAL SITE AREA: 351.55 AC  2)TOTAL AREAFROPOSED COMMERCIAL B-1 ZONING: 71.1 AC 3)TOTALAREAFROPOSED RESIDETIAL P2D ZONING: 310.45AC  (TRACTSBKE) (TMALTSARD)  4)TOTALOFEN SPACE: 92.67 AC (2495) STOTALRESIDETLAL UHITS: 931  6)TOTALCOMMERCIALSQUARE FOOTAGE: 627,3765 SF  Pinehill expended considerable sums in reliance on the approval of the PRD Development Plan, and therefore, Pinehill's rights are vested. Pinehill also received assurances through the MOU and the Certificate of Zoning for the Property. The County  cannot strip Pinehill of these vested rights now.  III. The Ordinance is Illegal and Unconstitutional.  The Ordinance will eviscerate Pinehill's vested rights. For example, the building design requirements set forth in Section 1-20.09 require side entry garages. This requirement alone will result in an extreme reduction in the number of lots to which Pinehill is entitled to develop under the PRD zoning. The PRD Development Plan approved by the County for the Property specifically provides that typical lot sizes include 60' wide lots and 75' wide lots. By approving the PRD, the County formally  approved the following lot sizes:  TYPICALUOT SIZESAND SETBACKS:  LOTSIZE/YFE FRONT SIDE CORNER/SIDE REAR  60'X135' 75'X135 TATNEREN  15 "5' 15  10' 10*  20 20'  5'  MUMIMUM LOTSIZE: 600Jsf.  This lot size is not obtainable as a result of the Ordinance, resulting in the destruction of Pinehill's vested rights. A side entry garage creates substantial issues with both lot width and depth, while also having to account for setbacks and topography. Side entry garages will make the approved lot sizes for the Property's PRD    Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Ann Lippmann  Page 6  zoning impossible to obtain. Pinehill has a vested interest in developing the Property  with smaller lots sizes than are possible with side entry garages.  The Ordinance is facially invalid as well. The Ordinance does not provide for any exemption from its provisions based on a party's vested rights, and iti is undisputed that the Ordinance has retroactive application. The PRD zoning category is a historical zoning category for the County, and the Ordinance itself provides that Iclommencing on August 28, 2018, no new applications for rezoning to the PRD Planned Residential Development district will be accepted by the Board of Commissioners." UDO $ 1-20 at n.1. As a result, the Ordinance cannot apply prospectively and only applies retroactively to already enacted PRD properties. Therefore, the Ordinance violates Article I, Section I,P Paragraph X of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. In Southern States-Bartow Cnty., Inc. V. Riverwood Farm Homeowners Ass'n, 300 Ga. 609 (2017), the Supreme  Court of Georgia stated:  'Laws prescribe ... for the future; they cannot  ordinarily, have a  retrospective operation - : O.C.G.A. $ 1-3-5. See also DeKalb Cnty. V. State, 270 Ga. 776 (1999). Our Constitution prohibits a legislative exercise of the police power that results in the passage of retrospective laws which injuriously affect the "vested rights" of citizens. See, e.g., Recycle & Recover, Inc. V. Georgia Bd. of Nat. Res., 266 Ga. 253 (1996); Hayes V. Howell, 251 Ga. 580 (2)(b) (1983). See also Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I,Par. X ("No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or laws impairing the obligation of contract or making irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed."). This prohibition against retroactive impairment of vested rights extends to the enactment ofz zoning regulations, which is an exercise of police powers. See Michiels V. Fulton Cnty., 261 Ga. 395, 397 (1991) ("In regulating zoning, a county exercises a governmental. function, that ofi its police power. "); RCG Props., LLCv.City of Atlanta Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 260 Ga. App. 355, 361 (2003) ("[Zjoning power, vested in the county governingauthority, isl legislative." . (Citations omitted.)). However, a law does not operate retrospectively in its legal sense simply "because it relates to antecedent facts, ...1 it [must be] intended to affect transactions which occurred or rights which accrued before it became operative as such, and which ascribe to them essentially different effects, in view of the law at the time of their occurrence." " That is, retrospective operation "takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new. liability in respect to transactions or considerations already  past." DeKalb Cnty., 270 Ga. at 778.    Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Ann Lippmann  Page7  Id. at 611-12. Accordingly, because the Ordinance has retrospective operation and  impairs vested rights, the Ordinance is facially invalid.6  The County did not follow the proper procedures under the Zoning Procedures Law ("ZPL") or procedural due process when enacting the Ordinance. For example, the agendas for the Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Commissioners' Work Session did not provide a draft of the text changes being proposed, SO there was no fair notice of what the County was considering or the opportunity to adequately address the proposed changes at a hearing. The purported "notice" provided in the newspaper was woefully inadequate to give fair notice of what was being proposed by the County. It only provided that there was a public hearing on a text amendment to "Title 2: Zoning and the Appendix of the Unified Development Ordinance for Paulding County, Georgia."  This description is the equivalent of no notice at all.  Moreover, at the Board of Commissioners Work Session, the Board of Commissioners decided to have an offline meeting with Ms. Lippmann rather than publicly discuss the amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance ("UDO"). Beyond violating the ZPLand procedural due process, the County's conduct violates the Open Meetings Act. See O.C.G.A. S 50-14-1 ("The gathering of a quorum of any committee of the members of the governing body of an agency or a quorum of any committee created by the governing body at which any official business, policy, or public matter of the committee is formulated, presented, discussed, or voted upon. : shall be  open to the public.").  The Ordinance violates thel home rule powers ofthe Georgia Constitution because The application of the Ordinance to the Property will unreasonably impair and destroy Pinehill's property rights without first paying fair, adequate and just compensation for such rights, in violation of Article I, Section I, Paragraph I of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, Article I, Section III, Paragraph I of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, and the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth  the provisions go beyond the County's power to zone.  Amendment tot the Constitution oft the United States.  The application of the Ordinance to the Property is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, constituting a taking of Pinehill's property in violation of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section I, Paragraph I, and Article I, Section III, Paragraph I of the  Constitution oft the State of Georgia.  The application of the Ordinance to the Property unconstitutionaly discriminates, in an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable manner, between Pinehill and other similarly situated entities and property owners in violation of Article I, Section I, Paragraph II of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Equal 6B Beyond the provisions of the Ordinance related to PRDs, the revisionary provisions blatantly violate  Southern States.    Zoning Board of Appeals Ms. Ann Lippmann  Page 8  Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United  States.  The application of the Ordinance to the Property constitutes an unreasonable and extreme hardship upon Pinehill without remotely advancing the public health, safety and welfare and would constitute an arbitrary and capricious act without any rational basis, therefore, constituting an abuse of discretion in violation of Article I, Section I, Paragraph Iofthe Constitution oft the State of Georgia, Article I, Section III, Paragraph I ofthe Constitution of the State of Georgia, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth  Amendment to the Constitution oft the United States.  For these reasons, we request that the BZA confirm that Pinehill has vested rights in developing the Property under the previous version of the UDO, that the Ordinance  does not apply to the Property, and that the Decision be set aside.  Sincerely,  BLOOM PARHAM, LLP L  Simon H. Bloom  cc: Jayson Phillips    APPLICATION  2024-08-V (APPEAL)    BLOOM PARHAM  Simon H. Bloom sbloom@bloom- law.com 404-577-7710  September 5, 2024  SEP -5 RECD  VIAEMAILANDHANDDELIVERY amm.lppmann@pauldliny.gou) Gphillips@tre-laufirm.com) Ann Lippmann Community Development Director Paulding County 240 Constitution Boulevard Dallas, Georgia 30132 Zoning Board of Appeals Paulding County c/o Ann Lippmann 240 Constitution Boulevard Dallas, Georgia 30132 VIAEMAIL Sphiltps@trc-lauyrm.com) Jayson Phillips, Esq. Talley, Richardson & Cable 367 West Memorial Drive P.O. Box 197 Dallas, Georgia 30132  Re: Vested Rights Entitling Pinehill Investments, LTD ("Pinehill") to Exemption from Ordinance 2024-05 for Sheffield Highlands North (the  "Property")  Dear Ms. Lippmann, Mr. Phillips, and the Zoning Board of Appeals:  This firm represents Pinehill with respect to the: above-referenced matter. Weare in receipt of Ms. Lippmann's letter dated August 8, 2024, finding that the Property is subject to Ordinance 2024-05 (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance conflicts with Pinehill's vested rights, and therefore cannot be applied to the Property. Please consider  Bloom Parham, LLP 9771 Ponce del Leon Ave., NE Atlanta, Georgia 30306  404.577.7710 phone  404.577.7715 fax  www.bloom-law.com    Ann Lippmann Jayson Phillips Page 2  Zoning Board of Appeals  this letter as Pinehill's written notice of appeal of the Decision pursuant to Unified I. The Decision is an Erroneous Application ofGeorgia) Law. Brown V. Carson, 313 Ga. 621 (2022) have been met." This finding isi incorrect.  Development Ordinance ("UDO") Section 290-40.01.1  The Decision is based on the finding that "none of the instances identified in Georgia's body of law governing a landowner's acquisition of vested rights is well developed. A landowner can acquire vested rights to initiate a specific use ofa property by: "(1) issued building and other permits, (2) the law in existence at the time a landowner properly files an application for a permit, (3) formally and informally approved development plans, or (4) official assurances that a building permit will probably issue." Brownv. Carson, 313 Ga. 621, 622-23 (2022). The latter two paths to vested rights, formally or informally approved development plans and reliance on official assurances, must be supported by making expenditures or incurring obligations in pursuit of the development. WMM Properties, Inc., 255 Ga. 436, 439 (1986). This case falls squarely within the third category of vested rights, sO the Decision is in error II. Pinehill has Vested Rights to an Exemption from the Ordinance.  and in violation of Georgia law.  A. Facts Establishing Pinehill's Vested Rights.  Pinehill obtained a rezoning of the Property to PRD, which included formal approval of a Site Development Plan for the Property as part of the larger Sheffield Highlands development, to allow for construction of a 1375 lot single-family residential subdivision. Pinehill expended substantial sums to pursue development ofthe Property. As detailed below, in light of the formal approvals, the assurances received from the County, and expenditures toward development of the Property, Pinehill is entitled to an exception from enforcement of the Ordinance against the Property. The following facts  support Pinehill's entitlement to vested rights for the Development:  In 2004, Pinehill submitted for Development of Regional Impact review for the entirety of the Sheffield Highlands development, which included the Property.2 GRTA 1 Pinehill believes that the proper method of appeal is pursuant to UDO Section 290-40.01, due to Ms. Lippmann's decision finding that the Ordinance applies. Pinehill's counsel has been instructed by Ms. Marcie Fierro in the Community Development Department that there is not a specific form to use for the Zoning Board of Appeals, and to submit the appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals using the WAIVER, MODIFICATION and. APPEALSI APPLICATION form for thel Development Waiver Review Committee. As such, Pinehill has modified that form for submission to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In the event the County determines that the appeal should be considered under the Development Regulation's Section 14.5.1(3), and therefore submitted to the Development Waiver Review Committee, Pinehill requests that  the appeal bei routed via that process. 21 Exhibit 1, DRI Application Summary.    Ann Lippmann Zoning Board of Appeals Jayson Phillips Page3  issued a Notice of Decision on October 18, 2004 approving the DRI.3 In: 2020 and 2024, the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission confirmed that no DRI re-review of the project was required.4 All ofthe required traffic improvements in the DRI contemplated development oft the entirety of Sheffield Highlands, including the Property.  Based on the GRTA Notice of Decision, Pinehill and the County entered into a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") with the County, which set forth an agreement with respect to the traffic improvements required for Sheffield Highlands and Sheffield Park.5 In the MOU, Pinehill agreed that it and its successors and/or assigns shall pay a maximum of $4,500,000 towards the traffic system enhancements described in the GRTA Notice of Decision. The MOU set forth payment terms based on the number of lots for Sheffield Highlands and Sheffield Park, which totaled 2851 lots. This agreement and representations by the County regarding the number of lots available for the development provided additional assurances for development of the  Property.  On January 25, 2005, the County approved Rezoning case 2005-8-Z which rezoned the Property from R-2 to PRD, with 23 stipulations and allowed for a 1375 lot single-family residential subdivision.6 Through this rezoning, the County formally approved the Site Development Plan for the project and approved the PRD zoning. The Board of Commissioners included in the conditions of the rezoning that the developer  adherei tot the MOU.  In2 2018, the County provided a Certificate of Zoning confirming the PRD zoning for the Property and that the DRI review remained in full effect for development of the  properties.7  On April 30, 2021, Pinehill entered into a development agreement with the City of Dallas in order to obtain sewer service for the Sheffield Highlands development.8 Pinehill entered the development agreement for the benefit of the entirety of Sheffield Highlands, ensuring the provision of sewer service to the Property. Under the development agreement, Pinehill paid a nonrefundable fee of $976,790, obligating its successors and assigns to pay a sewer basin fee of $1843 for each additional lot  connected to the sewerinfrastructure improvements.  In reliance on these approvals and agreements, Pinehill sold portions of Sheffield Highlands to D.R. Horton. D.R. Horton obtained a Preliminary Plat for Phase 1-6 of Sheffield Highlands, and then diligently pursued and obtained LDPs for Phases 1-2.9  3Exhibit 2, Notice of Decision. 5 Exhibit 4, MOU. 71 Exhibit 6, Certificate of Zoning. 81 Exhibit 7, Development Agreement. 9] Exhibit 8,1 Preliminary Plat.  41 Exhibit 3, January 16, 2020 and) March 1, 2024 correspondences.  6E Exhibit 5, Paulding County Board of Commissioners, Board Meeting Minutes, January 25, 2005.    Ann Lippmann Zoning Board of Appeals Jayson Phillips Page4  These documents show lot sizes with minimum lot widths of 56' and lot sizes of 8,000  square feet.  Moreover, the Preliminary Plat for Phases 1-6 requires a boulevard with a right- of-way of94-feet, shown as Jessamine Avenue, in order to connect the southern portion of Sheffield Highlands to the Property. Therefore, the Preliminary Plat for Phases 1-6 expressly contemplates development of the Property as part of the same subdivision. The larger boulevard was required in order to accommodate the traffic to be generated by the additional housing units anticipated for the Property. The required boulevard in the Preliminary Plat for Phases 1-6 can be seen highlighted in red below:  OCATIONN MAP  Pinehill is under contract with D.R. Horton to sell the Property in reliance on the priorapproved plans and assurances for Sheffield Highlands and the understanding that  the project could be developed consistently, including the Property.  Pinehill has incurred significant expense and taken action in reliance on the County's formal approvals of the Site Development Plan and other assurances regarding development oft the Property. Pinehill spent approximately $556,000 in additional costs to date to pursue development of Sheffield Highlands, as well as obligating itself and its successors and assigns to pay the sewer basin fee for sewer access for additional lots  using thei infrastructure.    Ann Lippmann Zoning Board of Appeals Jayson Phillips Pages 5  B. Pinehill Obtained Formal Approval of the PRD Site Development Plan and As explained above, a landowner can acquire vested rights to initiate a specific use of a property by: (1) obtaining building and other permits, (2)t the law in existence at the time a landowner properly files an application for a permit, (3) relying on formally and informally approved development plans, and/or (4) relying on official assurances that a building permit will probably issue. WMM Properties, Inc. V. Cobb Cnty., 255 Ga. 436, 438 (1986). However, formally or informally approved development plans and reliance on official assurances must be supported by making expenditures or incurring obligations in pursuit ofthe development. WMM Properties, Inc., 255 Ga. at4 439. For the third category of vested rights-reliance on formally and informally approved development plans-the Georgia Supreme Court's decision in DeKalb Cnty.v. Chapel Hill, Inc., 232 Ga. 238 (1974), is directly on point. In that case, the plaintiff applied for approval of a Community Unit Development Plan, which included a detailed plan with specific areas for various land uses within the plan. The Community Unit Development Plan was approved by the Board of Adjustments (because a rezoning was not required by the ordinance at the time), and the plaintiff expended substantial sums in reliance on the Community Unit Development Plan. The Georgia Supreme Court found that this approval and reliance was sufficient to establish the plaintiff's vested rights. The Georgia Supreme Court in WMM, the seminal case on the vested rights  Relied on that Approval, Entitling Pinehill to Vested Rights.  doctrine in Georgia, cited Chapel Hill for the rule that:  (c) Right to Rely on Approved Development Plan. (1) Formally approved. A landowner has a right to develop the property pursuant to a development plan duly approved by the county zoning authority pursuant to powers delegated to it by the county commission even though the development plan varied the existing zoning, where the landowner had expended large sums of money in furtherance of the development and has dedicated land for use as parks and schools in reliance upon its approved  development plan.  WMM Properties, Inc., 255 Ga. at 438-39.  The Decision fails to appreciate that a rezoning to PRD is necessarily a formal approval of a development plan. Paulding County's PRD section of the UDO makes clear that a rezoning to PRD is formal approval of a development plan. The UDO contains an entire section on "Site Development Plan" requirements, which must be submitted at the time of application to PRD. UDO S 1-20.08. Importantly, the UDO provides that [individual lot and dwelling sizes are to be approved when specific plans are submitted to the governing authority." UDO $ 1-20. Moreover, the UDO provides that "[m]ajor deviation from these detailed plans have to be re-submitted to the governing authority for approval." UDO S 1-20. Therefore, the PRD Site Development    Ann Lippmann Zoning Board of Appeals Jayson Phillips Page 6  Plan is the governing document for a PRD zoned property, which is formally approved  by the Board of Commissioners at thet time of rezoning to PRD.  Pinehill obtained formal approval of the below PRD Site Development Plan  through the rezoning of the Property to PRD:  a7 1 R  TRACT ZONING 181.57AC.  PROPOSEOF TRACTD ZONING" 458.46  Pinehill obtained vested rights in developing the Property as PRD without application of the Ordinance to the Property. Pinehill obtained a formally approved PRD Site Development Plan, obtained DRI approval, and obtained a MOU from the County which was adopted by the Board of Commissioners. The MOU and the PRD zoning provided assurances regarding the permissible lot counts for the Property. D.R. Horton obtained the Preliminary Plat for Phases 1-2 that expressly contemplates a connection to, and development of, the Property. Pinehill relied on these approvals and agreements entering into a contract to sell the Property and expending substantial sums towards its development. For these reasons, Pinehill has vested rights entitling it to  exemption from the application oft the Ordinance toi the Property.  The Decision also ignores that the Property is a part of the same rezoning as Sheffield Highlands Unit 1 and the same PRD Site Development Plan as Ashton Woods' High Shoals Road project, both of which Ms. Lippmann determined were vested. Therefore, the PRD Site Development Plan is vested. There are no legal grounds to find that a portion of a PRD: Site Development Plan is vested while others arei not.    Ann Lippmann Jayson Phillips  Zoning Board of Appeals  Page7  I. The Ordinance is Illegal and Unconstitutional.  The Ordinance will eviscerate Pinehill's vested rights. For example, the building design requirements set forth in Section 1-20.09 require side entry garages. This requirement alone will result in an extreme reduction in the number of lots to which Pinehill is entitled to develop under the PRD zoning. The Site Development Plan approved by the County for the Property specifically provides that typical lot sizes include 50' wide lots, 60'wide lots, and 70' wide lots. The Preliminary Plat for Phases 1- 6and the LDP for Phase 1 and 2 include 56' widel lots and minimum lot sizes of 8,000 sf. This lot mix/size is not obtainable as a result of the Ordinance, resulting in the destruction of Pinehill's vested rights. That is because a side entry garage creates substantial issues with both lot width and depth, while also having to account for setbacks and topography. Side entry garages will make the approved lot sizes for the Property's PRD zoning impossible to obtain. Pinehill has a vested interest in developing the Property with smaller lots sizes than are possible with side entry garages due to the zoning pursuant to a specific site development plan and the other County approvals with  smaller lot sizes for Sheffield Highlands.  Moreover, the other design requirements set forth in the Ordinance in Section 1- 20.09 violate Pinehill's vested rights. Pinehill and D.R. Horton determined the price for the sale of the Property based on certain cost calculations for each house. Requiring Pinehill to comply with the design requirements will destroy the budget for the cost of  each house and the economics oft the entire project.  In addition, it makes no sense to apply the Ordinance to the Property, which is a later phase of thel larger Sheffield Highlands development. Applying entirely new design requirements to later phases not only violates Pinehill's vested rights but is entirely contrary to the purported "design" concerns the County has with respect to PRD zoned properties. The Property shares road infrastructure, common amenities, HOA, and other components with the other phases of Sheffield Highlands. To impose different design standards on the Property will result in inconsistent and disjunctive phases ofthe same development, which cannot conceivably serve the County's purported aesthetic  goals for PRD.  The Ordinance is facially invalid as well. The Ordinance does not provide for any exemption from its provisions based on a parties' vested rights, and it is undisputed that the Ordinance has retroactive application. The PRD zoning category is a historical zoning category for the County, and the Ordinance itself provides that Iclommencing on August 28, 2018, no new applications for rezoning to the PRD Planned Residential Development district will be accepted by the Board of Commissioners." (Ordinance at n. 1). As a result, the Ordinance cannot apply prospectively and only applies retroactively to already enacted PRD properties. Therefore, the Ordinance violates Article I, Section I, Paragraph X of the Constitution of the State of Georgia. In Southern States-Bartow Cnty., Inc.v. Riverwood Farm Homeowners Ass'n, 300 Ga. 609 (2017), the Supreme  Court of Georgia stated:    Ann Lippmann Zoning Board of Appeals Jayson Phillips Page 8  Laws prescribe : for the future; they cannot : ordinarily, have a retrospective operation..." 'OCGA S 1-3-5. See also DeKalb County V. State, 270 Ga. 776 (1), 512 S.E.2d 284 (1999). Our Constitution prohibits a legislative exercise of the police power that results in the passage of retrospective laws which injuriously affect the "vested rights" of citizens. See, e.g., Recycle & Recover, Inc. V. Georgia Bd. of Natural Resources, 266 Ga. 253 (2), 466 S.E.2d 197 (1996); Hayes V. Howell, 251 Ga. 580 (2) (b), 308 S.E.2d 170 (1983). See also Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. I, Sec. I, Par. X ("No bill ofattainder, ex post facto law, retroactive law, or laws impairing the obligation of contract or making irrevocable grant of special privileges or immunities shall be passed."). This prohibition against retroactive impairment of vested rights extends to the enactment of zoning regulations, which is an exercise of police powers. See Michiels V. Fulton County, 261 Ga. 395, 397 (2), 405 S.E.2d 40 (1991) ("In regulating zoning, a county exercises a governmental function, that of its police power."); RCG Properties, LLC V. City of Atlanta Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 260 Ga.App. 355, 361, 579 S.E.2d 782 (2003) (" [Z]oning power, vested in the county governing authority, is legislative." (Citations omitted.)). However, a law does not operate retrospectively in its legal sense simply C 'because it relates to antecedent facts, : it [must be] intended to affect transactions which occurred or rights which accrued before it became operative as such, and which ascribe to them essentially different effects, in view of the law at the time of their occurrence. " That is, retrospective operation 4 'takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under existing laws or creates a new obligation, imposes a new duty, or attaches a new liability in respect tot transactions or considerations already past." > Id.at6 611-12. Accordingly, because the Ordinance has retrospective operation and  impairs vested rights, the Ordinance is facially invalid.10  The County did not follow the proper procedures under the Zoning Procedures Law ("ZPL") or procedural due process with respect to the Ordinance. For example, the agendas for the Planning Commission meeting and the Board of Commissioners' Work Session did not provide a draft of the text changes being proposed, so there was no fair notice of what the County was considering or the opportunity to adequately address the proposed changes at a hearing. The purported "notice" provided in the newspaper was woefully inadequate to give fair notice of what was being proposed by the County. It only provided that there was a public hearing on a text amendment to "Title 2: Zoning and the Appendix oft the Unified Development Ordinance for Paulding County, Georgia.'  This description is the equivalent of no notice at all.  10 Beyond the provisions of the Ordinance related tol PRDs, the revisionary provisions blatantlyviolate  Southern States.    Ann Lippmann Zoning Board of Appeals Jayson Phillips Pageg  Moreover, at the Board of Commissioners Work Session, the Board of Commissioners determined to have an offline meeting with Ms. Lippman rather than publicly discuss the amendments to the UDO. Beyond violating the ZPLand procedural  due process, the County's conduct violates the Open Meetings Act. the provisions go beyond the County's power to zone.  The Ordinance violates the home rule powers oft the Georgia Constitution because The application of the Ordinance to the Property will unreasonably impair and destroy Pinehill's property rights without first paying fair, adequate and just compensation for such rights, in violation of Article I, Section I, Paragraph I of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, Article I, Section III, Paragraph I of the Constitution of the State of Georgia, and the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth  Amendment toi the Constitution oft the United States.  The application of the Ordinance to the Property is unconstitutional, illegal, null and void, constituting a taking of Pinehill's property in violation of the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section I, Paragraph I, and Article I, Section III, Paragraph I of the  Constitution oft the State of Georgia.  The application of the Ordinance to the Property unconstitutionally discriminates, in an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable manner, between Pinehill and other similarly situated entities and property owners in violation of Article I, Section I, Paragraph II of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United  States.  The application of the Ordinance to the Property constitutes an unreasonable and extreme hardship upon Pinehill without remotely advancing the public health, safety and welfare and would constitute an arbitrary and capricious act without any rational basis therefore, constituting an abuse of discretion in violation of Article I, Section I, Paragraph Iofthe Constitution oft the State of Georgia, Article I, Section III, Paragraph I ofthe Constitution oft the State of Georgia, and the Due Process Clause oft the Fourteenth  Amendment to the Constitution oft the United States.  Pinehill requests that the Decision be overturned and the ZBA make the determination that Pinehill has vested rights in developing the Property under the old  UDO and that the Ordinance does not apply.  Sincerely,  BLOOM PARHAM, LLP Smpy Bloonu Simon H. Bloom  pumaisino  ysP    APPEAL TO ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OR  WAIVER, MODIFICATION and APPEALS APPLICATION Paulding County Development Waiver Review Committee Paulding County Planning and Zoning Division *] Dallas, Ga 30157*770-443-7601  Bloom Parham, LLP  Name of Applicant Representative Address Atlanta City.  977 Ponce de Leon Ave NE  NA 30306 Zip  Home Phone  Georgia State bo 6  Email sbicom@biom-aw.com: pearson@bcom-aw.com Phone (404)577-7710  Signature ofA Applicant/ /R Notary Public Name(s) ofTitleholder(s). Address Atlanta City. Email  Pldrees  Signed,sealeJandd delivered int thej prependeof Tur oublic  NOTARY Mrsomplppits. PUBLIC COUNT ITIIN Georgia State  1-8-3035  Pinehill Investments, Ltd.  4200 Northside Parkway NW wbh2@pinehillinvestments.com Signature ZKMA Signed, sealed and delivered in fhe presenceof Ntary Public/" Splud Present Zoning District(s). Development: Reg. Articlet # Land Lot(s). Ist the property int the Hiram City Limits? Location of property.  NA 30327 Zip (404)237-4675  Home Phone Phone  YVETTE RENAUD oyrae-Saefdeue Cobb County Wy-Commission Expiras Aug30,2026 Site Acreage ofA Application. Tax Parcel L.D. Number(s). 3 District(s).  commission expires 8-30-2026  PRD  223.8  223.8  Acreage ofTitleholder(s), 074.4.2.001.0000 3 Section(s).  1.5.4, Ordinance 2024-05.  1019, 1020, 1021, 1022, 1067, 1068, 1069, 1070,  No  (yes or no)  Shady Grove Church Road  Nearest intersections, (ie. east/ west sidec ofs given road and: southnorth ofs given road) and address ifavailable  Reason for waiver, modification, or appeal requested, along with copies ofs supporting information or documents, ifapplicable:  See attached letter to Zoning Board of Appeals.  UV SEP -5 RECD  **Staff Use Only** DWRC Recommendation: Approved.  Case a024-0B-V CAppeal) Hearing Date AoVmler 1,2034  Conditions Reason Date  Disapproved. Tabled  12-17    ANMT,OIGOOISHONH, JOI   GI'SINGWISAN THHINId SONVIHOIH G1313HS  1  ARRAR    ZONING ANALYSIS  2024-08-V (Appeal)  Applicant: Bloom Parham, LLP Titleholder: Pinehill Investments, LLC  Date: November 12, 2024 District: 3 Section: 3  Requesting: to appeal the decision denying  Land Lot: 1019,1020, - 1021, 1022, 1067, 1068, 1069 & 1070 Present Zoning: PRD (Planned Residential Development)  vested rights entitling PRD (Planned Residential Development) Ordinance 2024-05 for Sheffield Highlands North.  Post 4  L.L. 999 District: 3 Section: 3  L.L. 998 District: 3 Section: 3  L.L. 997 District: 3 Section: 3  L.L. 996 District: 3 Section: 3  LL.995 District: 3 Section: 3  L.L.1018 District: Section:  LL 1019 District 3 Sections 3  LL.1020 District 3 Section: 3 2024-0B-V/(APPEAL) Pending  L.L1021 District3 Section: 3  1022 trict: 3 Secth pn: 3  L107 pistrict: Section:  LL.1070 District: 3 Section:3  LL1069 District: 3 Section: 3  LL.1068 3 District Section 3 Section:  LL1067 Districs: 3  109 District3 Section: 3  L.L. 1091 District: 3 Section: 3  L.L. 1092 District: 3 Section: 3  L.L. 1093 District: 3 Section: 3 Section: 3  L.L.1 1094 District: 3  0  500  1,000  2,000 Feet    MULBERRY FOTHER MULBERRY  0  500  1,000  2,000 Feet    / 3 3  09 9P  O  (G    APPLICATION  2024-09-V (APPEAL)    FRED! D, BENTLEY, JR. * R. RANDALL BENTLEY, SR. ESTABLISHED 1948 FACSIMILE No.: (770)4 424-5820 *ADMITTED1 TOPRACTICEIN LOUISIANA AND1 TEXAS "*ADMITTED1 TOP PRACTICEIN CALIFORNIA  BENTLEV, BENTLEY & BENTLEY Shcengys a.oe 241 WASHINGTON. AVENUE MARIETTA,GEORGIA 30060 HEBENILEYERMICOM (770)4 422-2300  FRED D. BENTLEY, SR, (1926-2019) OF COUNSEL SAM P. HENSLEY, JR. JAMIE S. WINGLER LAURENL. MCKENZIE STAND. BABB COLEEND. HOSACK LINDA. W. BRUNT RUSSEL ALEXANDER PRESTON NIK ERRAMILLI**  August 29,2024  Ann Lippmann Community Development Director 240 Constitution Boulevard Dallas, Georgia 30132  RE: Appeal of Suspension, Revocation or Conditional Permit Pursuant to Code Section 14.05(a) by George' Tomas Homes, LLC: for PRD Zoned Property -The Park at Ansleigh Farms Phase 2 = approximately 33.35 acres referenced as Parcel  #084.2.3.045.0000 Dear Ms. Lippmann:  This firm represents George Tomas Homes, LLC with respect to an appeal pursuant to "This suspension, revocation or condition of a permit by the various departments upon finding that the holder is not in compliance with the approved plan; or that the holder is in violation of permit conditions; or that the holder is in violation ofany ordinance; shall entitle the person submitting the plan or holding the permit to a hearing before the development waiver review committee within 15 days after receipt by the community  code section 14.05(a). More specifically, which provides as follows:  development director of written notice of appeal."  This is an appeal ofyour determination on. August 8, 2024, that Phase 2 is not vested and as such The Park at Ansleigh Farms Phase 2 is subject to Ordinance 2024-5. Wel hereby request a hearing be set to be heard by the Development Waiver Review Committee within 15 days oft this submission. In the letter provided to my client George Tomas Homes, LLC, you state that "there is no vesting because the Development Permit issued on December 9, 2020, is considered    expired since the project has been determined to be abandoned due to a lapse in development activity as authorized by the Development Permit issued on December 9, 2020, for 90 calendar days or more."Inc connection with this statement, I wanted to bring to your attention applicable Georgia case law precedent regarding abandonment of permits and zoning. In Ansley House V.  Atlanta, the court held the following:  "Where an ordinance sets forth a specific time period but contains nothing that negates the factor ofintent to abandon, the expiration oft the time period set forth in the ordinance has been construed by a majority of courts to merely raise a rebuttable presumption that there has been an intent to abandon the nonconforming use. Some proofo ofan overt act or failure to act is still required before there will be a finding of an intent to abandon the nonconforming use." Ansley House V. Allanta, 260 Ga. 540,  542, 397S.E.2d 419, 421 (1990).  Ido not believe your prior decision took into account Georgia law with respect to an intent to abandon the vested interests ofn my client. Paulding County's ordinance under Section 3.2 Community development permits does not contain anything that negates the factor ofintent and thus the 90-day time period set forth within said ordinance merely raises a rebuttable  presumption.  Considering that Section 3.2.3(c) requires the following to constitute abandonment: "A development permit shall expire 12 months after issuance unless development activity as authorized by the permit is initiated within the 12-month period ori if such authorized activities lapse and the project is abandoned for a period exceeding 90 calendar days." Tol highlight that no such 90-day lapse ofauthorized activities has occurred since the issuance of the Land Development Permit (LDP), my client has previously submitted evidence, and II have attached additional evidence in the form ofaffidavits for light development activity that has been ongoing as it relates primarily to erosion control and minor moving of dirt with the intention of keeping the LDP active. This evidence of a series of closely connected overt acts rebuts the presumption and clearly shows an intent not to abandon. Additionally, Shay Wells (Paulding County Community Development Division Coordinator), stated the following in an email to my  client on February 15,2024:  "After talking with Jeffand Bobby,your LDPisi included for Phase 1 & phase 2. So,  your LDP is still good." "  As you are aware the LDP was. issued for the entire 63.42 acres, including both Phase 1 and Phase 2 of development on December 9, 2020. See the following notable dates of activity:  May 2021 - Grubbing began in both phases August 2022 -) Phase 2 pond C completed June 2023 - Final plat recorded    July 2023 - Installed posts and fencing at the entrance to Phase 2  August 2024 - Up until this date have performed monthly NPDES inspections and testing and light development activity has been ongoing as it relates primarily to erosion control and minor moving of dirt with the intention ofl keeping the LDP active. (See separate  activity sheet attached)  The attached development activity shows that during this time work occurred in both phases. George Tomas Homes, LLC received an offer on the site to sell with intentions to close on October 18, 2024. Because of] Paulding County's decision to rule that Phase 2 is not vested and is subject to Ordinance 2024-05 my client has lost this sale. Additionally, we. have due process concerns regarding Ann Lippmann's service as a decision maker in her capacity as Community Development Director as well as on appeal ofher previous decision as a member oft the Development Waiver Review Committee. I am hopeful that this body's consideration oft the  above will dispense with the need for filing an ante litem notice.  Respectfully submitted EE  Fred D. Attorney for  Tomas Homes, LLC  George  BENTLEY, BENTLEY, & BENTLEY 241 Washington Avenue Marietta, Georgia 30060 (770)-422-2300 dalhehenleyfim.com    WAIVER, MODIFICATION and APPEALS APPLICATION Paulding County Development Waiver Review Committee Paulding County Planning and Zoning Division * Dallas, Ga 30157+770-443-7601  EOARDAIO  Name of Applicant / Representative Gcory Temas Homes Thomas Dozier  Address LszsSimnylarte Bhe Sel 18b0  Home Phone 770-779-7676 Phone_ 678-843-753  City Noruross Email_ tdoziergthons Signature of Apitamt/Reptsemamiwe) X a  State_ GA  Zip_30071  ades  LynnA Ann Janke Cherokee State of Georgia MyComm. Expiraa Octobar40,  NOTARXRVBHAsione ekpires QbARZK  2024  Name(s)ofT Titleholder(s), Gcore Jomas Homcal homae DoZiar  Address U625Timnylade Biv 3te 146 Home Phone_ 7707782676  Cily_ Noruoss  State 64  7_30071  Email_ toziergthomest CAyai Low Signature of Tileholder(s) Um Sgayshdmgaetivemi int thep presence of: 4  Phone 679-948-7987  Lynn Ann Janke NOTARY PUBLIC Mv Comm. State of Georgia Expires  CherokeeMy commission pxpires Aak1920F  Notary/  October 19, 2024  Present Zoning District(s). PRD Site Acreage of Application 33.367 Acreage ofTiteholder(s). 33.367  Development Reg. Article#_ Land Lot(s).  NA  Tax Parcel L.D. Number(s). 084230450000  134/17  District(s).  3  Section(s). 3  Ist the propery in the Hiram City Limits?. NO  (yesorno)  Location ofp property Svblivision isat incrsectin POdlourhnyfaon W-hpiaca  Nearest intersections, (ie. east/ west sided ofs given) road and southhorth ollgiven road) and dddress ifa available  Reason for waiver, modification. or appeal requested, along with copies ofs supporting information or documents, ifa applicable:  **StaffUse Only** 2BA Recommendation: Approved  Case 202-0VAppuy Hearing Da-0VembeY 12,D0A  Conditions Reason Date  Disapproved. Tabled  12-17    NODCUOM A803AOUddV WONId3 ARNMVEO 02-909 3IVO $0090 ONA Ap3roud  MDHO39' AINNODONOIVS NOIID3S 90219S0Z1 Ouc ZLII "4IPCII SI01QMANIGAIVOO)  S1Vis0 UBA0S #3l10ld W8VIHOB7SNV. JV> HHVd 3HL  - E a    HODCHM A8d3AONddV dar -ABNAVIG 611-2 31Vd IVidsud #i0ld  vigNoao" AINDODE ONIGTNVd HOIIDES 9021 29021 OHE ZLI' IDHISIJOBE AE PCII S:01ON/INIG3NVO0  $9090 ON193rOud SWHVI) H9137SNV IV> MBVd5 SHI  f  STRETE    HASHSM A903A0UddV G1-EZL AGNMVO BivG *3101d 9090 ONI  VI9H039' AINNOO oNIOTNVd NOUD3SO O8E" OIISIOGHC 0024 PSOZL Z4H LLLE vCI 031V001 SWBVSH9IB7SNV, IV> MBVdE 3HI  B)   a8IF (3) 3) () ()    BODCHOM ABG3AOHddV WONdI ABNWVAO 02-609 SNVIISNO #3N101d  VIOHO39 'AINAOO ONIOTVd NOUD3S OuE 'IDIISIO aus BIVO 90Z1. 7 goz1 ZLIL '4I1 ELs SI01 ONV NI 031V007 S9D-90 ON103/Oad W8V:HOIE7SNVI 1V> MHVd3HI  a) @      HODIEBOM AB03AO8ddV SNVIdISND #31H1018  M98039 NDI133S OHF 'AINAOS 'IDISIC ONIG10Vd OuE S107 ONVI NI 031V007  PION43r D2-S09 'ABNAWJO 31V0 90Z1 3 SozI 'ZLIILIL 'EII 990-90 ON103POHd W8VH917SNV. IV> MJVd JHL  3) G () @4  5) G   G ()  5 @    ZONING ANALYSIS  2024-09-V (Appeal)  Applicant: George Tomas Homes/Thomas Dozier Titleholder: George Tomas Homes LLC Land Lot: 1134 & 1171  Date: November 12, 2024 District: 3 Section: 3  Requesting: to appeal the decision denying  vested rights entitling PRD (Planned Residential Development) Ordinance 2024-05 for Ansleigh Farms PHS II.  Present Zoning: PRD (Planned Residential Development)  Post 4  150 238 149 290 148 239 240  242 223 221 222  211/202 135 134 133 132  241 141 138 137 140 139 142 1134 strict: 3 oS Section: 3  93 292 291  179  286 L. 289 284 285 Disifict:/3 Section! 3 287 288 OS  147 146 144 143 DP  L.L. 1133 District: 3 Section: 3  2024-09-V (Appeal) Pending  L.L. 1170 District.3- Section: 3  L.L.1171 District3 Section oS  L.L. 1172 District: Section:  106 107 108 110 111 119 a 112 118 113 117 FRIESANWAY 1,260 Feet  40 41 42  128 129 130 131 132 133 109 127 126 125 124 123 122 EAUOWVEWLOU 39 38 37 36 35 34  AMNTY 120 121  0  315  630    eneng  OW  1O48 AARND se  0  295  590  1,180 Feet    QHV WVHAINDOO 010  8 1    9  0 & 8  8 e d8 8 e  NIGHBE IGOVS 3 8 8 3 a 8 8 3 8 8 8 S  S 1 9  9  6  4 d8 9 1  ASPIANCT  8 &    G