IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA
TANNER ADVERTISING GROUP , LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BROOKHAVEN, GEORGIA,
SUSAN CANON, in her official capacity
as Director of Community Development,
Defndants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION FILE
No. lYL\ S85G-r
COMPLAINT FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND
ATTORNEYS' FEES
Plaintiff Tanner Advertising Group, LLC ("Tanner") files this its Complaint for
Mandamus Relief, Declaratory Judgment, and Attorey's Fees against Defendant and alleges as
follows:
PARTIES
1.
Plaintif Tanner is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
Georgia.
2.
Defndant City of Brookhaven, Georgia ("City") is a political subdivision of the State of
Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court. Defendant may be served with
process through its Mayor, J. Max Davis at Brookhaven City Hall, 4362 Peachtree Road,
Brookhaven, GA 30329.
3.
Defendant Susan Canon is the Director of Community Development fr Defendant City
of Brookaven, Georgia, and as such beas the ultimate responsibility fr the issuance or denial
of permits. Defndant Susan Canon may be served with process at Brookhaven City Hall, 4362
Peachtree Road, Forest Park, Georgia.
JURISDICTION
4.
Defndants are subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and venue is proper against
Defndants under the fcts and circumstances as alleged herein.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Tanner Seeks to Post SiQ s in i|eCity.
5.
Plaintif Tanner is in the business of buying or leasing land upon which to post sigs to
be used fr the dissemination of both commercial and noncommercial speech.
6.
Tanner's owner and operator expended substantial time and efort investigating numerous
potential sign locations in the City.
7.
Afer substantial eforts by Tanner, the owners of interests in three (3) parcels of real
property in the City signed agreements authorizing Tanner to erect and operate billboard sigs on
their respective properties.
8.
2
All of the signs were to be located on parcels in areas appropriate fr commercial activity
and that are actually in use for commercial activity. Further, each of the parcels is adj acent only
to other commercially used properties.
9.
On May 7, 2014, the City denied Tanner permission to post its proposed sign located at
423414240 Peachtree Road based solely upon the provisions of its Sign Ordinance. A copy of
this denial letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
10.
On May 7, 2014, the City denied Tanner permission to post its proposed sig located at
2055 North Druid Hills Road based solely upon the provisions of its Sign Ordinance. A copy of
this denial letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
11.
On May 21, 2014, the City denied Tanner permission to post its proposed sign located at
2911 Bufrd Highway based solely upon the provisions of its Sig Ordinance. A copy of this
denial letter is attached hereto as Exhibit "C".
B. The Zoning Ordinance fr the City.
12.
On December 27, 2012, an ad was placed in the legal section of the Champion
Newspaper stating that the City would be conducting a public hearing in accordance with
the Georgia Zoning Procedures Law "for the purpose to consider the adoption of the
Brookhaven Zoning Ordinance" on January 14 at 7:00 p.m. with a second read on January 15
at 7:30 p.m.
13.
3
On January 14 and 15 of 2013, the City Council considered a zoning ordinance fr the
City which refrenced a zoning map as "Exhibit A".
14.
No zoning map was attached to the zoning ordinance.
15.
There is no map desigated as "Zoning maps, City of Brookhaven, Georgia".
16.
The purorted zoning map fr the City of Brookhaven was not adopted pursuant to the
requirements of the Zoning Procedures Laws.
17.
There was no zoning map physically present in the public meeting room on January
14, 2013 and January 15, 2013, when a vote was taken on the Zoning Ordinance.
18.
No zoning map was made part of the minutes of the January 15, 2013 meeting when the
zoning ordinance and sign ordinance were voted upon.
19.
The map was not made available fr public review prior to the vote on its purorted
adoption.
20.
On January 15, 2013, Councilma Jim Eye made a motion to approve Ordinance 02013-
01-56 but did not include a zoning map in his motion.
21.
Without a valid underlying zoning map, a zoning ordinance is not valid.
4
22.
On January 15, 2013, the City Council also considered and adopted a Sign Ordinance fr
the City.
23.
The Sig Ordinance regulates signs based upon the zoning of the property.
24.
An essential element of the Sign Ordinance is a zoning map depicting which parcels are
zoned to each zoning classifcation.
25.
The Sign Ordinance is a "zoning ordinance" under Georgia law.
26.
Because the City has never adopted a zoning map, the Sign Ordinance is not valid and
is unenfrceable.
C. Tanner's Sigs.
27.
Tanner submitted completed sign application packages, with all applicable fes, to post
three (3) signs to the City. Each application package contained all infrmation and
documentation required by the City's purported regulations and/or mentioned on the City's
application frms.
28.
Tanner intends to advertise products or services of specifc interest to the motoring
public.
5
29 .
Each sign is flly compliant with State of Georgia regulations. The State regulates such
signs along state routes to protect trafc safety and other interests.
COUNT I
REQUEST FOR MANDAMUS RELIEF
30.
Plaintif incororates by reference the allegations in Paragraphs 1-29 above as if set frth
verbatim herein.
31.
The City's reasons fr denying Tanner permission to post its sign rest entirely upon the
provisions of the Sig Ordinance.
32.
Due to the absence of valid sig regulations, the City has no basis to deny Tanner
permission to post its sign.
33.
Because the City lacks valid sig restrictions, Tanner's applications fr signs meet all of
the City's requirements, the Community Development Director, Defndant Susan Canon, or her
designee, is required to issue all permits, perissions, and other documents to allow Tanner to
post its three signs. Tanner has a clear legal right to the issuance of the sign permits.
6
34.
To the extent that any City official is allowed any discretion in denying Tanner
permission to post its signs, it would have been a gross abuse of discretion to deny Tanner's
requested applications.
COUT II
DECLARATOR JUDGMENT
35.
Plaintif incororates by refrence the allegations in Paragraphs 1-34 above as if set forh
verbatim herein.
36.
The City has never adopted a zoning map establishing zones within the City.
37.
Due to the lack of a properly adopted zoning map, the Zoning Ordinance and Sign
Ordinance are invalid and unenfrceable.
38.
Tanner is entitled to judgment declaring the Zoning Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance
are invalid and unenforceable.
39.
Because the Zoning Ordinance and Sig Ordinance are invalid and unenforceable, the
City has provided no valid reason to deny Tanner to post its signs and Tanner is entitled to
declaratory judgment that the City must allow Tanner to erect its signs without the need for
zoning approval or a sign permit.
7
COUT III
DECLARATORY JGMENT
40.
Plaintif incorporates by refrence the allegations in Paragraphs 1-39 above as if set frth
verbatim herein.
41.
The Sig Ordinance prohibits all sigs unless specifically allowed by the terms of the
Sig Ordinance.
42.
The Sign Ordinance allows sigs based upon the zoning of the property where the sign is
to be located.
43.
Without a valid zoning map specifically designating which property is zoned to which
zoning classifcation, there can be no allowance of any sigs.
44.
Without a valid zoning map, the Sig Ordinance effectively prohibits all signs within the
City.
45.
The broad prohibition of sigs within the City violates both the U.S. Constitution and the
Constitution of the State of Georgia.
46.
Tanner is entitled to judgment declaring the Sign Ordinance invalid, void, and
unenforceable as it is unconstitutional.
8
47.
Because the Zoning Ordinance and Sign Ordinance are invalid and unenfrceable, the
City has provided no valid reason to deny Tanner permission to post its sigs and Tanner is
entitled to declaratory judgent that the City must allow Tanner to erect its signs without the
need fr zoning approval or a sig permit.
ATTORNEY'S FEES
48.
Plaintif incororates by refrence the allegations in Paragraphs 1-4 7 above as if set forth
verbatim herein.
49.
The City can ofer no meritorious defnse of its denial of Tanner's applications for
permission to post its signs. The provisions relied on by the City's of ficials are invalid and
unenfrceable.
50.
Tanner is entitled to an award of attorey's fes because there is a "complete absence of
any justiciable issue oflaw or fct that it could not be reasonably believed that a court would
accept the asserted claim, defnse, or other position." O.C. G.A. 9-15-14(a
)
. The City has
relied upon no valid code section and no reasonable interpretation of its code in denying
Tanner's sign perit applications.
51.
Tanner is entitled to an award of attorey's fes pursuant to O.C. G.A. 9-15-14(b)
because there is no substantial justification for the City's denial of Tanner's sign perit
applications.
9
WHEREFORE, Plaintif Tanner Advertising Group, LLC prays:
(1)
For this Court to order Susa Canon to issue Tanner all necessary documentation
allowing Tanner to erect its three sigs;
(2
)
For this Court to order Defndant to provide any and all necessary certifcation to
the State of Georgia;
(3) For this Court to issue Declaratory Judgent holding that the Sign Ordinance and
the Zoning Ordinance are invalid and unenforceable;
( 4)
For this Court to issue Declaratory Judgment holding that the Sig Ordinance is
an unconstitutional prior restraint on fee speech and is therefre invalid, void, and
unenfrceable;
(5
)
For an award pursuant to O.C. G.A. 9-15-14 of all reasonable costs and
attoreys' fes incurred by Plaintiff in bringing this action; and
(
6
)
For such other and frther relief as the Court may deem just and equitable.
DATED this 6th day of June, 2014.
10
Respectflly submitted,
BY: Lindsey Law Finn, L. L.C.
s'
Georgia State Bar No. 050607
Richard P. Lindsey
Georgia State Bar No. 453066
2004 Commerce Drive, North
sauu o
r--
|eac|tteeCity Georgia u!o
,,
770-692-8118 c c
scott!l]c.ne:
g
;
Attoreys fr Plaintif
-l<
7
C
C
c
:
-

=
.
C
C
3
|
C

f
Exhibit "A"
Ma 7, 2014
Tanner Advertising Group, LLC
951 Moores Walk Lane
Suwanee, GA 30024
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Re: Sign pennit application fr 4234/4:40 Peachtree Road (Brookhaven Brothers.
U,C\ Sign Permit ii l :-BH-IC'2:
Dea Mr. Chordegia:
This letter is to infnn you that the sign permit application (ground sign) applied fr on April 25.
2014 for the property located at 4234/4240 Peachtree Road has been denied, as fmihcr prvided
herein.
PursumittoArticlc UL Sections 21-18 and 21-20 of the city's Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21 L ground
signs O exceed H height of 20 feet, must maintain d width equal O OI le5S than 15 fct -vide,
and CdRROI have greater sign 8lC8 than 160 square fet. Per the submitted application, a
feestanding sign h3s heen proposed with a height of 55 feet and 3 sign !C of 672 . quare feet.
Based OI the information submitted, the proposed sign vvould violate all p;rovisions fr new ground
signage and also noncompliant with Section 21-20(d). which states that the aggregate signable dlCd
for a commercially zoned property cannot exceed 450 square fee!. Lastly pl USC note that onl/
one ground sign is pem1itted per street frontage and vvhen implementing double-fe sign, lhe
interior angle frmed by te display area shall be less than 59 degrees.
Please retain this letter fr your records and fee] free to contact DC with any questions.
Sincerely,
.
/

t

-


Ben Song '
Deputy Director of Comunit Development
City of Brookhaven
43b2 FeaChllCC Ho80.HrOO8havD. 3031S
|hOn0 44-!-U 18x` 404b30b01
:}..tf:k.h.'.1Q a ov
Exhibit "B"
May 7, 2014
Tanner Advertising Group, LLC
951 Moores Walk Lane
Suwaee, GA 30024
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Re: Sign pe1mit application fr 2055 North Druid Hills Road (Panjwani Group, LLC);
Sign Permit if 14-BI-I-SJG)l
Dear Mr. Chordegian:
This letter is to inform you that the sign pennit application (ground sign) applied for on April 25,
2014 for the property located at 2055 North Druid Hills Road has been denied, as frther pIoYided
herein.
Pursuant to Article Ill, Sections 21-18 and 21-20 of the city's Sign Ordinance (Chapter 21 ), ground
signs cannot exceed a height of 20 fet. must maintain a width equal to or less than 15 feet wide,
and cannot have a greater sign area tha 160 square feet. Per the submitted application, a
freestanding sign has been proposed with a height of 55 fet and a sign area of 672 square fet.
Based on the info1maticm submited, the proposed sign would violate all proYi5i onS for new ground
signage and also noncompliant with Section 21-20( d), which states that the aggregate signable area
fr a conm1ercially zoned prope11y cannot exceed 450 squae fet. Lastly, please note that only
one ground sign is permitted per street frontage and when implementing a double-fce sign, the
interiOr angle formed by the display area shall be less th 59 degrees.
Please retain this letter for your records and feel free to contact me with any questions.
Sincerel y,
t
/
Ben Sog
Deputy Director of CommUTi!y Development
City of Brookhaven
4362 |8SCh!|8 HDSd, |DOkhSv8n, LP 30J1
|hOn8. 404-b`-0b00 !Bx. 404-b3`-0b01
'!..Jrook_bave _a _g
Exhibjt "C"
May21,2014
Tanner Advertising Group. LLC
951 Moores Walk Lane
Suwm1ee, GA 3 0024
VIA CERTIFlED MAIL
Re: Sign pem1it application fr 2911 Buford Highway (SE AJ Tl, Inc); Sign Pennit #
14BH-SIGN30
Dear Mr. Chonlegian:
This letter is to infom1 you that the sign permit application (ground sign) applied for on May 13,
2014 for the property located at 291 l Buford Highway has been denied, 08 turther provided herein.
Pursuat to Article IIl, Sections 21-18 and '1-20 of the city's Sign Ordinance (Chapter21), ground
signs C8H1O' eXCeOd 8 height of 20 feet, must maintain a width equal to or less tan 15 feet wide,
and cannot have a greater sign area than 160 square feet. Per the submitted application. a
freestanding sign has been proposed vith a height of 55 feet ad d sign aea of 6 Tl square feet.
Based on the infration submitted, the proposed sign would violate all provisions fr new ground
signage and also noncompliant with Section 21-20(d), which states th8t the aggregate signable dICd
for a commercially zoned property cannot exceed 450 square feet. Lastly, please UO\= that only
OUC ground sign is permitted per street frontage and when implementing a double-fce sign. the
interior angle fnned by the disr lay area shall he less than 59 degrees.
Please retain this letter fr your records and feel fee to contact me with any questions.
Sincerely,
. '
"
Be11 Song

Deputy Director O Commw1ity Development
City of Brookhaven
4`2 |ea0trOe Hoad. Bluokhaven, UP JC319
OnC. 404-b3`-0b00 !ax. 4C4.7-01
__'_(JoOkh