This is clean up legislation for HB 1004 from the 2016 legislative session.  All maps, plats, plans and condominium plans must now be submitted electronically to the clerk of superior court.  The remainder of the bill was worked out over the interim between counties, cities, surveyors, engineers, architects and the clerks, specifying the format for the submittal of plats and plans, required data for plats, which plats must be certified by land surveyors, and other certification required for plats.  Attempts to add language stating that maps not creating new roads or utilities do not need local approval prior to submittal to the clerk were unsuccessful. 

For the guidance document, click here. 

This legislation preempts local governments from adopting ordinances regulating the use of drones except for ordinances adopted before April 1, 2017, ordinances that enforce Federal Aviation Administration restrictions or ordinances prohibiting the launch, recovery or intentional landing of drones on county property.

This complex and lengthy bill provides as close to unfettered access to county and municipal rights of way (ROW) as possible for wireless providers to construct unlimited wireless support structures/poles (50' high, or 10' taller than any existing pole within 500'), antennas (up to 6 cubic feet), equipment boxes (up to 28 cubic feet) and other infrastructure in order to roll out 5G service in metropolitan areas.  The bill limits or preempts a broad range of county decisions regarding: wireless structures within and outside public ROW, collocation of small wireless facilities, zoning reviews for cell towers and wireless support structures, modifications to wireless facilities outside public ROW, location of wireless facilities on local government owned utility poles, and county jurisdiction over small wireless facilities on private property. For example, HB 535 would bar local governments from subjecting certain wireless facilities to zoning review and approval, limit fees that counties and cities could impose for permitting, regulating and managing access to public ROW by wireless companies, and impose unrealistic shot clocks for counties to make decisions regarding various wireless facilities; otherwise the applications are "deemed approved". In addition, the bill would prohibit counties from requiring that wireless providers indemnify and hold the county harmless against claims arising from negligent acts of the provider and does not provide that these structures be removed or relocated, at provider expense, for road widening, maintenance or emergency situations. Lastly, counties can only deny a permit for this infrastructure if it violates stipulations in the bill... which are slim to none.  

This legislation authorizes EMCs to provide broadband service, VoIP, wireless services and other emerging communications technologies within their service areas and a 5-mile radius thereof.  EMCs would be allowed to accept state, federal and private grants loans to fund this endeavor, but cannot cross-subsidize their broadband services from their electric or natural gas funds. To do this, EMCs must provide nondiscriminatory, competitively neutral and commercially reasonable terms, conditions and access to their utility poles for other communications service providers.      

This legislation applies the Federal Religious Restoration Act to the State of Georgia and counties.  The Federal Religious Restoration Act prohibits the government from substantially burdening a person's exercise of religious unless it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling governmental interest.  

This latest state preemption legislation, mirrored in HB 948, prohibits local governments from prohibiting or otherwise restricting the retail sale of any goods, products or items regulated by the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the GA Dept. of Agriculture, so long as any said sales are in compliance with local zoning.  This effort to preempt local ordinances prohibiting a certain pet store chain has expanded greatly.   ACCG asks that you pay very close attention to this bill and provide Todd Edwards (tedwards@accg.org) feedback on how this bill may impact any county ordinances regulating the retail sale of animals (pets or livestock), tobacco, alcohol, plants, etc.  

For a list of all goods, products and items regulated by these agencies (thus preempted by local government regulation) please click here.   

Please note that ACCG takes no position on the operation of certain pet store chains; however, ACCG opposes taking away a community's ability to regulate the broad swath of goods, products and items covered by the above three agencies.