ATLANTA — A Georgia Supreme Court ruling about a zoning dispute over small homes on a small barrier island could have big consequences for a big state.
The high court ruled Tuesday that a local referendum against a McIntosh County zoning ordinance could move forward.
The decision reversed a superior court judge’s order that halted the voter referendum on grounds that it violated the county’s constitutional authority to make and enforce its own development rules.
County commissioners had adopted a new ordinance to allow houses to be built on Sapelo Island that exceeded the previous maximum of 1,400 square feet. Locals from the Gullah-Geechee community on the barrier island opposed the idea and secured enough signatures to hold a referendum to stop it.
The high court’s decision interprets ambiguity in a 1983 re-write of the state constitution that altered the relationship between what’s known as county “home rule” and zoning authority.
The justices wrote that “nothing in the text of the Zoning Provision in any way restricts a county electorate’s authority to seek repeal of a zoning ordinance. The superior court therefore erred” when it halted the referendum, which had been authorized by a local probate judge.
The high court also granted an injunction against enforcement of the new zoning ordinance.
“It means that we now have a chance to get this referendum back on the docket,” said Reginald Hall, a local activist opposed to the ordinance allowing larger houses.
The state Supreme Court had already opened the door two years ago to voter challenges of local government decisions when it decided that voters in Camden County could use a referendum to prevent the purchase of land for a spaceport. The facility would have lobbed commercial rockets over the Cumberland Island National Seashore, prompting concerns about the health of the coastal marsh and about the quality of life for nearby residents.
The high court’s ruling Tuesday involved three cases, one by residents who sought an injunction against the ordinance and two between the county and the probate judge who authorized the referendum.