C & H Development, LLC sued Franklin County and its neighboring landowner, Aubrey Lunsford, claiming, among other things, that the County failed to follow its zoning regulation and governing State law in considering and granting Lunsford’s request for a conditional use permit to build four chicken houses on his property. The trial court subsequently granted summary judgment to the County on C & H’s zoning claim and on its associated claim for attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses. C & H appeals, and for the reasons set forth below, we affirm in part and reverse in part. “To prevail at summary judgment under OCGA § 9-11-56, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the undisputed facts, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, warrant judgment as a matter of law.”1 On appeal from the grant or denial of summary judgment, we apply a de novo standard and “view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.”2
So viewed, the evidence shows that C & H owned real property adjacent to and downhill from real property owned by Lunsford. Both properties are located in the County’s “agricultural intensive district.” The County’s zoning regulation provided that poultry operations which met the district’s minimum requirements constituted a “conditional use.” Lunsford applied for a conditional use permit to construct four chicken houses on his property in addition to four existing chicken houses. On December 22, 2005, the County published notice in the Franklin County Citizen that a public hearing on Lunsford’s conditional use permit request would be held by its Board of Commissioners on February 6, 2006.3 The Board conducted the public hearing and approved the conditional use permit on Monday, February 6, 2006.