The fate of a zoning-related civil suit initiated by the mayor of the City of Brooklet against his own city is now in the hands of a superior court judge.
Whether or not the suit will continue follows a motion by the City for the case to be dismissed altogether, a revelation of sworn affidavits that contradict official records, and a relentless legal battle that’s costing taxpayers handily.
Motion for Summary Judgment
In March 2026, attorneys for the City of Brooklet filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asking the court to dismiss the suit citing an absent “genuine issue of material fact on any issue.” The motion listed the following:
- G3 Ventures cannot manufacture cabinets under C-2 zoning and therefore cannot demonstrate any legally cognizable detriment arising from the City’s decision.
- G3 Ventures has no vested right or lawful nonconforming use permitting cabinet manufacturing on the property, and, in any event, has failed to exhaust available administrative remedies necessary to pursue such a claim.
- No equal protection violation is present, as G3 Ventures has no constitutional right to engage in an unlawful use prohibited by the City’s Zoning Ordinance and has identified no similarly situated lawful comparators for an equal protection analysis.
- G3 Ventures cannot meet its burden under O.C.G.A. § 36-66-5.1 because the undisputable record demonstrates that the City’s zoning decision bears a substantial relation to legitimate public health, safety, and welfare considerations and imposed no significant detriment.
- No inverse condemnation or regulatory taking has occurred, as G3 Ventures retains economically viable use of the property and the denial of a rezoning request does not constitute a taking under State or Federal law.
G3 Ventures Responds to Motion for Summary Judgment
Expectedly, G3 Ventures opposed the Motion for Summary Judgment. Attorneys argued that the city did not adopt the ordinance in 2002 in accordance with state law, citing affidavits signed by J. Barney Sineath and mayor Nicky Gwinnett.
Sineath’s affidavit, dated April 10, 2026, states that he attended the March 2002 meeting and changes were made to the zoning maps and that the current maps do not reflect the changes that were made back in 2002. He also wrote that he requested meeting minutes for 2002 in 2006 and no meeting minutes from the called meeting in March 2002 were provided.
Gwinnett’s affidavit states that he reviewed the meeting minute books from 2002, noting that meeting minutes from February 2002 include the ordinance, which was supposed to be included in the city’s Zoning Map, but that there are no meeting minutes at all for March 2002. He also wrote that he could not locate the official zoning maps from January 1, 2020 through December 2025. (Notably, Gwinnett served on council from January 1, 2020 to December 31, 2023 when he took on the role as Mayor).
Gwinnett was serving on the city council at the time of the March 2002 meeting, but neither affidavit mentions if Gwinnett was present at the special-called meeting from which no minutes exist. According to other meeting minutes, Gwinnett was present at the February 21, 2002 meeting where it was announced that council would adopt the new Zoning Ordinance and ‘sign off on the new maps,’ among other things at the upcoming special-called meeting.
Attorneys for G3 Ventures argue that since there are no meeting minutes, there is no proof that a quorum was present to adopt the ordinance and there’s no vote tally. They also argue that part of the ordinance is missing from the February 2002 meeting minutes.
The attorneys also outline issues with the adoption of the zoning maps and inconsistent records on file in the early 2000s, which they say has made it difficult to determine when the maps were adopted.
“The evidence in this case…conclusively establishes that [the city] did not adopt the zoning ordinance in conformance with the ZPL. Further, even if the portion of the zoning ordinance found in the meeting minutes of the Brooklet City Council had been properly adopted under the ZPL, which it was not, the only sections of the purported zoning ordinance that can be found in the meeting minutes.”
They do concede that it is impossible to determine what action, if any, was taken in March 2002 when meeting minutes cannot be located, but say much remains to be determined at trial and, therefore, the Motion for Summary Judgment should be denied.
City’s Response to the Response by G3 Ventures
The City of Brooklet’s brief filed on May 1, 2026 argued that G3 Ventures did not respond to any of the arguments made by the City in their request for summary judgment. Attorneys also blasted G3 Ventures for their raising of two new arguments about the validity of the zoning ordinance and maps, noting that neither had been raised before and both were based on inadmissible evidence.
Attorneys also wrote that during his deposition related to this case in October 2025, Gwinnett raised no issues as to the validity of the Zoning map, had no issues finding the Zoning map, and made no efforts to allege any impropriety.
“[G3 Ventures] relies on affidavit testimony from Nicky Gwinnett and J. Barney Sineath, along with documents that are not authenticated or certified. This evidence is not sufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. Instead, their arguments conveniently omit the meeting minutes from the properly noticed meeting held by the City of Brooklet on March 4, 2002 that are attached herewith. The official records of the City of Brooklet, including City Council meeting minutes and certified copies of its Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map, establish that the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map were properly enacted in accordance with applicable law.”
The Response by the City includes certified city council meeting minutes that explicitly state the notice for the March 2002 meeting was published in the Statesboro Herald as required by law and that Councilman Nicky Gwinnett was the one who made the motions to approve the zoning policies for zoning hearings and an adoption of the standards governing the city’s zoning authority. He also voted in favor of passing the text of the zoning ordinance and the official zoning maps in question.
Most notably, the response states that in 2023, while on city council, Gwinnett voted against the rezone of another property seeking to move from R-3 to I-1 for a cabinet shop.
Ruling from Judge Muldrew
The case is assigned to Judge Michael Muldrew. There is no timeline in which he must issue a ruling.
Check back to TheGeorgiaVirtue for updates.
