Rickman, Judge. Appellants Sweet City Landfill, LLC, J. B. Wright, and Jack Stovall, Jr. (collectively, “Sweet City”) appeal the trial court’s November 2015 order granting the motion to dismiss filed by Appellees Elbert County, The Board of Commissioners of Elbert County, and the County Manager of Elbert County (collectively, “Elbert County”). Relying on existing precedent of the Supreme Court of Georgia, we previously dismissed this appeal based on Sweet City’s failure to follow the discretionary appeal process. The Supreme Court subsequently granted Sweet City’s petition for certiorari, vacated our decision, and remanded the case to this Court for reconsideration in light of two recent decisions, Schumacher v. City of Roswell, 301 Ga. 635 (803 SE2d 66) (2017), and Shelley v. Town of Tyrone, 302 Ga. 297 (806 SE2d 535) (2017). For reasons that follow, we affirm. Sweet City initially filed a “Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, and Injunctive Relief” against Elbert County, seeking declarations that its waste disposal facility was not required to obtain a special use permit, that Elbert County’s Solid Waste Disposal Ordinance was unconstitutional on various grounds, and that Sweet City had a vested right to develop and operate a waste disposal facility notwithstanding the Elbert County zoning ordinance and map. Sweet City also sought a mandatory injunction to require Elbert County to issue a special use permit, if necessary, to allow Sweet City to develop and operate the waste disposal facility. Elbert County moved to dismiss the complaint, and Sweet City moved for summary judgment. The trial court subsequently issued an order in September 2014: granting summary judgment to Sweet City on the grounds that the County’s Solid Waste Ordinance violated the dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and that the July 9, 2012 Board action deprived Sweet City of equal protection under both the United States and Georgia Constitutions; declaring that Sweet City has a vested right to have the County issue “a letter of zoning and development compliance and consistency with the County’s solid Waste Management Plan”; declaring that Sweet City has a vested right to develop the property as a landfill free of any zoning and land use restrictions; and, granting a temporary injunction against the County from enacting or enforcing ordinances so as to interfere with Sweet City’s development. The superior court also denied the County’s motion to dismiss, rejecting the County’s argument that Sweet City had to exhaust its administrative remedies prior to filing suit.
Elbert County v. Sweet City Landfill, 297 Ga. 429, 431 (774 SE2d 658) (2015). After granting Elbert County’s application for discretionary appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia held that the trial court did not err in ruling that the Board of Commissioners of Elbert County (the “Board”) took no action on Sweet City’s application for a special use permit, but did err in rejecting Elbert County’s argument that the trial court must dismiss the matter due to Sweet City’s failure to exhaust its administrative remedies. Id. at 432-433 (1). The Supreme Court further held that based on Sweet City’s failure to obtain a final decision from the Board, the trial court erred in reaching the merits of Sweet City’s claim of a vested right in the issuance of a letter of compliance and in addressing Sweet City’s equal protection claim. Id. at 433-434 (1). With respect to Sweet City’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of Elbert County’s solid waste ordinance, the Supreme Court held that the claim was not subject to an exhaustion requirement, but that the trial court had erred in failing to apply the balancing test set forth in Pike v. Bruce Church, Inc., 397 U. S. 137 (90 SCt 844, 25 LEd2d 174) (1970), and remanded the case for it to do so. Elbert County, 297 Ga. at 434-436 (2). After the case was remanded to the trial court, Elbert County repealed and replaced the challenged ordinance and filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the amended ordinance rendered the remaining claim, the facial challenge to the ordinance, moot. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Elbert County’s motion. Sweet City appeals this ruling, contending that the trial court erred in dismissing the declaratory judgment action based on mootness, failing to analyze Sweet City’s vested rights, and failing to follow the direction of the Georgia Supreme Court on remand. 1. We must first reconsider our determination that an application for discretionary appeal was required in this case. Even with recent authority from the Georgia Supreme Court, determining whether a direct appeal or a discretionary appeal is appropriate in a case involving zoning issues requires us to a navigate a tortuous path. Pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), appeals from decisions of the superior courts reviewing decisions of state and local administrative agencies must be made by filing an application for discretionary appeal. In 1989, the Georgia Supreme Court held that “all zoning cases appealed either to the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Georgia must hereafter come by application.” Trend Dev. Corp. v. Douglas County, 259 Ga. 425, 426 (1) (383 SE2d 123) (1989). This rule also applied to appeals from a trial court’s ruling on a challenge to the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance on its face. See O. S. Advertising Co. of Ga. v. Rubin, 267 Ga. 723, 725 (2) (482 SE2d 295) (1997). In Schumacher v. City of Roswell, 301 Ga. 635, 636-638 (1) (803 SE2d 66) (2017), the Georgia Supreme Court determined that a stand-alone lawsuit challenging an ordinance as facially invalid is not a “zoning case” under Trend and Rubin and therefore does not require a discretionary application. The Schumacher Court did not overrule Trend or Rubin, instead concluding that “a careful reading of [Trend and Rubin] shows that they can be reconciled with OCGA § 5635 (a) (1) because a ‘zoning case’ is a case involving a ‘decision’ by an ‘administrative agenc[y]‘ dealing with the zoning or allowed use of a particular parcel of land.” Id. at 638 (2). The issue in Schumacher was whether a city council’s adoption of a new zoning code was a “decision” of a “local administrative agency.” Id. at 637 (1). A “decision,” as the term is used in OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (1), refers to an administrative determination of an adjudicative, as opposed to an executive or legislative, nature. State v. Intl. Keystone Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, 299 Ga. 392, 403-404 (4) (a) (788 SE2d 455) (2016). The distinction between an adjudicative determination and a legislative determination has been defined as follows: Administrative determinations of a legislative nature are prospective in application, general in application, and often marked by a general factual inquiry that is not specific to the unique character, activities or circumstances of any particular person. Determinations of an adjudicative nature, on the other hand, are immediate in application, specific in application, and commonly involve an assessment of facts about the parties and their activities, businesses, and properties.
