Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
H.H.B., are accountants. D & F, are a real-estate company. H.H.B., are accountants. D & F, are a real-estate company. D & F owns a 1.7-acre corner parcel of property located at the intersection of Dauphin Street, North Florida Street, and Woodruff Street. H.H.B. is located is across North Florida Street from the subject property. All of the property in the immediate neighborhood is zoned R-1 (One-Family Residential Districts) or B-1 (Buffer Business Districts). D & F intends to build a 10,000-square-foot CVS retail discount store with 60 parking places on the subject property. D & F must have the zoning designation of the subject property changed to B-2 (Neighborhood Business Districts). Woodruff Street is exclusively residential. Dauphin Street and North Florida Street are a mixture of residential areas and buffer-business areas. Buffer businesses are professional offices and studios. The subject property previously consisted of eight lots, almost all of which have been zoned for the past 50 years as either R-1 or B-1. During the 1960s, a drugstore occupied the corner site for several years. Before D & F acquired the property, three residences and a building used as a real-estate office were situated on it. The subject property has since been cleared and all buildings removed. A zoning change requires the approval of the Mobile City Planning Commission, followed by the approval of the Mobile City Council. After numerous submissions, the planning commission's staff recommended to the commission, that it deny the third application. The planning commission voted 6-2 to recommend to the city council that it approve D & F's application to change the subject property's zoning designation to B-2. The planning commission's recommendation was subject to the conditions and restrictions D & F had voluntarily attached to its application. The council members voted 4-3 to approve the amendment to the zoning ordinance. But, section 11-44C-28, Ala. Code 1975, requires a 'supermajority' of the city council before an ordinance can be adopted, which meant that five votes were required. D & F appealed the denial of the zoning- ordinance amendment to the Mobile Circuit Court. D & F claimed the denial was 'arbitrary and capricious,' with no substantial relationship to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the City of Mobile, and that the decision not to rezone the subject property was 'not fairly debatable' because D & F was not seeking to change the basic use of the property. H.H.B. filed a motion to intervene. The trial court agreed with D & F that keeping the subject property zoned R-1 and B-1 bore no substantial relationship to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the City, and that the City's decision not to rezone was not fairly debatable because D & F was not seeking to change the basic use of the property. Only H.H.B. appealed. The City is not a party to these appellate proceedings.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co