Cobb County appeals board upholds water department's denial of Appaloosa Farms lift-station plan

The Cobb County Board of Zoning Appeals on Thursday upheld the county water system's decision to deny a developer's proposed private lift station and force-main connection for the Appaloosa Farms subdivision, finding the design did not satisfy a specific requirement of Cobb County Code section 122-126(B)(4)(B).

The hearing focused on whether the proposed lift station 'which would pump through a private force main to a manhole on an adjacent easement parcel'complied with the code provision that the "station pumps to a manhole located on one of the properties served from which sewage can flow by gravity to public sewer." Russell Britt, counsel for Cobb County Water System, told the board "this language is plain and unambiguous" and argued staff had consistently applied that plain meaning in denying the plan.

The water system director, Miss Giddens, testified under oath that staff determined every condition except one had been satisfied but that subsection B4B was not met because the proposed manhole would sit on a parcel that is not itself served by the private lift station. Under cross-examination she said the department's position is that the adjacent easement parcel "is not being served by this lift station." When asked whether the plan complies with the relevant code, she answered, "No, it does not."

Appellant counsel, identified in the record as Governor Barnes, argued the ordinance's wording should be construed in favor of the landowner and said the project included several protections: a homeowners association responsible for maintenance, a $50,000 escrow controlled by the county for pump replacement, and a maintenance contract with a private company. Barnes also pointed to an approval letter from the Georgia Environmental Protection Division and several court decisions he said support his reading of the code.

Board members debated two central questions: whether the ordinance text was ambiguous and, if ambiguous, whether that ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the landowner; and whether the county's policy reason for the provision (to avoid a third-party intermediate parcel becoming a liability in the event of malfunction) would be defeated by the appellant's reading. Commissioners also discussed long-term maintenance risks for private systems run by homeowners associations.

After deliberation the board voted to uphold the water system's denial of the proposed design under section 122-126(B)(4)(B). The chair announced the motion passed with a 3'1 vote and noted a prior recusal by one commissioner. The board indicated it may announce a written decision in the days that follow.

What happens next: the board will issue a written decision and return it to the appellant and property owner; the record indicates the parties may propose written orders and that the board could take the decision under advisement before issuing a final written ruling.