In sum, we reverse the trial court order dismissing YKH’s untimely notices of appeal. We also reverse the portions of the trial court’s order granting partial summary judgment to GDOT on the issues of consequential damages resulting from the increased slopes and grades on the property and the narrowed entrance portals, as those are issues for jury determination. We affirm the remainder of the grant of partial summary judgment.
[. . .]
YKH has not moved to join the Spencers ’ timely appeal. This does not end our inquiry, however.
[. . .]
YKH has not moved to join the Spencers’ timely appeal. This does not end our inquiry, however.
[. . .]
As an initial matter, some of the Condemnees’ arguments within this enumeration stray from, and expand upon, those enunciated in its enumerations of error. Specifically, the Condemnees argue that Parcels 5 and 6 are contiguous with Parcel X, the latter of which was not subject to the condemnation, and that Parcel X should thus have been included in GDOT’s assessment of consequential damages. The Condemnees did not enumerate this lack of inclusion as error, however.
[. . .]
While it is true that a landowner may not be compensated for inconveniences shared by the public in general — such as placement of a permanent dead-end, circuitry of travel, changes in traffic patterns or greater difficulty in ingress/egress caused by changes in traffic patterns — where a property owner’s direct access is “totally eliminated,” Dept. of Transp. v. Taylor, 264 Ga. 18, 20 (3) (b), 440 S.E.2d 652 (1994), or “substantially interfered with[,]” Circle K General, 196 Ga. App. at 618, 396 S.E.2d 522, it is “appropriate for [a] trier of fact to decide the extent of the impairment to existing access[.]” Taylor, 264 Ga. at 20 (3) (b), 440 S.E.2d 652; accord Circle K General, 196 Ga. App. at 618, 396 S.E.2d 522 (finding that “[w]hether a property owner has ‘reasonable access’ to the property under the circumstances and whether the existing access was ‘substantially interfered with’ are questions of fact to be decided by the jury.”) (citation omitted).
[. . .]
Here, however, the Condemnees are asserting that large vehicles like RVs, which are central to their business, at least on one of the parcels, experience impeded access to the property in the form of scraping the vehicles’ back ends because of the steeper slope. This evidence relates to a “physical alteration or obstruction to [the Condemnees’] former (pre-take) access[.]” Taylor, 264 Ga. at 21 (3) (c), 440 S.E.2d 652 (contrasting a physical alteration impeding access to a landowner’s property with changes in traffic patterns that affect the general public).9 Under the facts presented in this case, whether or not the increased slope amounts to a substantial impairment of access is a matter for jury determination.
