Joe Zegarelli v. Montevallo Planning and Zoning Commission

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 11/6/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080470 Joe Zegarelli v. Montevallo Planning and Zoning Commission Appeal from Shelby C i r c u i t Court (CV-07-986) BRYAN, J u d g e . Joe Zegarelli appeals from a judgment granting the summary-judgment m o t i o n o f t h e M o n t e v a l l o P l a n n i n g a n d Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n ( " t h e C o m m i s s i o n " ) a n d d e n y i n g Z e g a r e l l i ' s summaryjudgment m o t i o n . We a f f i r m . 2080470 The t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t r e c i t e s t h e f a c t u a l b a c k g r o u n d pertinent to t h i s appeal: "At [ i t s October 18, 2007, p u b l i c ] m e e t i n g the Commission c o n s i d e r e d p r o p o s a l s f o r the development o f townhomes on two p a r c e l s o f p r o p e r t y l o c a t e d w i t h i n c l o s e p r o x i m i t y t o e a c h o t h e r . The first p r o p o s a l c o n s i d e r e d by t h e C o m m i s s i o n was the Montevallo S q u a r e p r o j e c t s u b m i t t e d by Mr. Joe Z e g a r e l l i . ... The s e c o n d p r o p o s a l c o n s i d e r e d by t h e C o m m i s s i o n was f o r the development of the Shoal C r e e k Cove p r o j e c t s u b m i t t e d by Mr. M i c k e y H a r d y "Mr. Z e g a r e l l i ' s M o n t e v a l l o S q u a r e d e v e l o p m e n t c o n s i s t e d o f a 9.68 a c r e t r a c t o f l a n d p r o p o s e d f o r 90 townhomes t o be d e v e l o p e d i n p h a s e s . Phase One c o n s i s t e d o f 49 townhomes on 5.3 a c r e s . The o t h e r 41 townhomes were t o be d e v e l o p e d on t h e remaining a c r e a g e d u r i n g P h a s e Two. Mr. Z e g a r e l l i purchased the p r o p e r t y f o r the purpose of d e v e l o p i n g i t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n he had o b t a i n e d f r o m t h e c i t y p l a n n e r and e n g i n e e r , b o t h o f whom u l t i m a t e l y recommended t h e p r o j e c t t o t h e C o m m i s s i o n . "When t h e p r o j e c t came b e f o r e t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o r vote at i t s October 18, 2007, m e e t i n g , Mayor A n d e r s o n a b s t a i n e d f r o m v o t i n g on t h e M o n t e v a l l o Square p r o j e c t , citing a potential conflict of interest. The result was that four commission members v o t e d i n f a v o r o f t h e p r o j e c t , and f o u r v o t e d a g a i n s t . A b s e n t t h e mayor's v o t e , t h e p r o j e c t f a i l e d to o b t a i n approval. Immediately thereafter t h e S h o a l C r e e k Cove p r o p o s a l was b r o u g h t b e f o r e t h e Commission. "The S h o a l C r e e k Cove d e v e l o p m e n t c o n s i s t e d o f 66 townhomes and 40 a p a r t m e n t s t o be c o m b i n e d w i t h 26 e x i s t i n g a p a r t m e n t s f o r a t o t a l o f 132 u n i t s t o be s i t u a t e d on 15.88 a c r e s o f l a n d . J u s t as t h e y had done w i t h t h e M o n t e v a l l o S q u a r e p r o j e c t , t h e c i t y 2 2080470 e n g i n e e r and t h e c i t y p l a n n e r recommended t h a t t h e Commission approve the s i t e p l a n proposed f o r the S h o a l C r e e k Cove p r o j e c t . The v o t e on t h e m o t i o n t o a p p r o v e t h e S h o a l C r e e k Cove p r o j e c t was divided b e t w e e n t h e c o m m i s s i o n members, f o u r i n f a v o r and f o u r a g a i n s t , e x a c t l y as t h e M o n t e v a l l o S q u a r e v o t e . In this i n s t a n c e , h o w e v e r , t h e mayor c a s t t h e d e c i d i n g vote i n f a v o r of a p p r o v a l . "The r e s u l t o f t h e O c t o b e r 18, 2007, p l a n n i n g commission m e e t i n g was t h a t o f t h e two townhome p r o j e c t s p r o p o s e d u n d e r t h e D-2 D e v e l o p m e n t D i s t r i c t d e s i g n a t i o n of the M o n t e v a l l o Zoning Ordinance, both o f w h i c h were recommended f o r a p p r o v a l by city o f f i c i a l s who had d e t e r m i n e d t h a t the p r o p o s a l s complied with the D-2 Development District r e q u i r e m e n t s ; one p r o j e c t was approved, and the o t h e r was n o t . The m i n u t e s o f t h e m e e t i n g r e f l e c t the commissioners' concern over this apparent 'inconsistency' caused by the commissioners' c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e w h i c h g o v e r n s t h e D-2 D e v e l o p m e n t District. The inevitable result is that Mr. Z e g a r e l l i has f i l e d s u i t i n t h e n a t u r e o f a W r i t o f Mandamus, r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e court order the M o n t e v a l l o P l a n n i n g and Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n t o a p p r o v e his application for the Montevallo Square s u b d i v i s i o n . Mr. [ R o d e r i c k ] M a c P h e r s o n [ , a citizen o f M o n t e v a l l o , ] has f i l e d s u i t s e e k i n g a D e c l a r a t o r y Judgment t h a t t h e M o n t e v a l l o P l a n n i n g and Zoning C o m m i s s i o n was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o a p p r o v e Mr. H a r d y ' s p r o p o s e d S h o a l C r e e k Cove s u b d i v i s i o n p l a n . MacPherson a l l e g e s t h a t the p l a n d i d not comply w i t h t h e D-2 D e v e l o p m e n t D i s t r i c t d e n s i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s as m a n d a t e d by t h e M o n t e v a l l o Z o n i n g O r d i n a n c e . " In Zegarelli's action, the Commission moved the trial c o u r t f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . The C o m m i s s i o n a s s e r t e d t h a t i t was e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , 3 i t s a i d , the f o u r 2080470 members o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n who h a d v o t e d a g a i n s t t h e m o t i o n t o approve Zegarelli's site plan had done interpreted the Montevallo Zoning ordinance") to provide Zegarelli than five townhouses reasonable that per acre i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of therefore, t h e Commission's so because Ordinance ("the the which zoning failure zoning not b u i l d h i s land, on could they more was ordinance, a and, t o approve Z e g a r e l l i ' s s i t e p l a n was n o t a r b i t r a r y a n d c a p r i c i o u s . Z e g a r e l l i f i l e d a cross-motion f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . He a s s e r t e d t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e , he s a i d , h i s s i t e p l a n c o m p l i e d the Montevallo Subdivision with the zoning ordinance Regulations ("the and subdivision r e g u l a t i o n s " ) a n d t h e C o m m i s s i o n d i d n o t have t h e a u t h o r i t y t o withhold zoning i t s approval ordinance The trial of a s i t e plan that complied with the and t h e s u b d i v i s i o n r e g u l a t i o n s . court sua sponte consolidated Zegarelli's a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e Commission w i t h MacPherson's a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e C o m m i s s i o n a n d H a r d y f o r p u r p o s e s o f h e a r i n g a n d r u l i n g on the cross-motions f o r a summary j u d g m e n t t h a t h a d b e e n i n both cases. F o l l o w i n g a hearing, the t r i a l single c o n s o l i d a t e d judgment i n both 4 filed court entered a Z e g a r e l l i ' s a c t i o n and 2080470 MacPherson's a c t i o n . With r e s p e c t to Z e g a r e l l i ' s a c t i o n , the j u d g m e n t g r a n t e d t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s summary-judgment m o t i o n and denied Zegarelli's r a t i o n a l e , the summary-judgment trial court motion. Explaining stated: "The pertinent portions of M o n t e v a l l o Z o n i n g O r d i n a n c e a r e as the applicable follows: "'ARTICLE I I I . D e f i n i t i o n s "'Density Factor. An i n t e n s i t y measure e x p r e s s e d as t h e number o f u n i t s p e r net b u i l d a b l e s i t e a r e a . I t i s t h e d e n s i t y on the b u i l d a b l e p o r t i o n of the s i t e " ' G r o s s D e n s i t y . The q u o t i e n t o f t h e t o t a l number o f d w e l l i n g u n i t s d i v i d e d by the t o t a l area of a s i t e used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes " ' I m p e r v i o u s S u r f a c e R a t i o . A measure o f the i n t e n s i t y of land use which is d e t e r m i n e d by d i v i d i n g t h e t o t a l a r e a o f a l l i m p e r v i o u s s u r f a c e s on a s i t e b y , i n the case of r e s i d e n t i a l uses the area used t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e q u i r e d open s p a c e o r i n the case of nonresidential uses, the b u i l d a b l e s i t e area "'ARTICLE V I I I . D e v e l o p m e n t "'Section 3. D-2 Development Districts District. "'B. P e r f o r m a n c e S u b d i v i s i o n s -The primary purpose of this district is to accommodate r e s i d e n t i a l development w i t h o u t i m p a c t i n g on s e n s i t i v e l a n d s . The f o l l o w i n g uses are permitted: 5 its 2080470 "'(1) Single attached and dwellings. "'(2) dwellings. family detached Two-family "'(3) Multiple family dwelling including condominiums, town h o u s e s a n d apartments "'C. The f o l l o w i n g performance regulations apply to r e s i d e n t i a l uses i n performance s u b d i v i s i o n s : "'(1) Maximum density of dwelling units acre. "'(2) space gross five per Minimum open r a t i o o f 0.30. "'(3) Maximum density f a c t o r of 10 residential units per acre. "'(4) Maximum impervious surface r a t i o o f 0.38.' "Zoning Ordinance, C i t y of M o n t e v a l l o , Alabama, of a d o p t e d b y M o n t e v a l l o C i t y C o u n c i l May 10, 1999, t amended A p r i l 14, 2003. " I t i s u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e above s t a t e d p o r t i o n s of the Montevallo Zoning Ordinance are those g o v e r n i n g t h e M o n t e v a l l o S q u a r e a n d S h o a l C r e e k Cove proposals. B o t h p r o p o s a l s were p r e s e n t e d t o t h e 6 2080470 Commission w i t h t h e a p p r o v a l and recommendation o f c i t y o f f i c i a l s , i n c l u d i n g t h e c i t y p l a n n e r and t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r ; and b o t h p r o p o s a l s contained less than t e n r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s p e r acre. The c i t y o f f i c i a l s , t h e mayor, a n d a t l e a s t f o u r members o f t h e C o m m i s s i o n have d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e maximum number o f a v a i l a b l e u n i t s i n a D-2 D e v e l o p m e n t D i s t r i c t Performance S u b d i v i s i o n i s c a l c u l a t e d by m u l t i p l y i n g t h e t o t a l s i t e a c r e a g e t i m e s t e n . The r e s u l t o f t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n i s u s e d as t h e maximum number o f u n i t s t o be c o n s t r u c t e d on any g i v e n s i t e . By this method the Montevallo Square project p r o p o s e d 49 townhomes on 5.3 a c r e s o f l a n d w h i c h h a s a 53 u n i t c a p . The S h o a l C r e e k Cove p r o j e c t p r o p o s e d 132 t o t a l u n i t s on 15.88 a c r e s o f l a n d w h i c h w o u l d have accommodated up t o 158 u n i t s . "The d e n s i t y c a l c u l a t i o n s were made p u r s u a n t t o S e c t i o n 3.C.(3) o f t h e Z o n i n g O r d i n a n c e w h i c h s t a t e s that t h e D-2 Development District Performance Subdivision i s l i m i t e d t o a ' [m]aximum density f a c t o r o f 10 r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s p e r a c r e . ' Both d e v e l o p e r s c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e i r p r o j e c t met t h i s z o n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t , a n d was, t h e r e f o r e , due t o be approved by t h e Commission. Nevertheless, Mr. Z e g a r e l l i ' s M o n t e v a l l o Square development f a i l e d t o o b t a i n a p p r o v a l as a r e s u l t o f t h e f o u r - f o u r t i e v o t e . Mr. H a r d y ' s S h o a l C r e e k Cove p r o p o s a l was approved by a f i v e t o f o u r vote because o f the mayor's t i e b r e a k e r . "Mr. Z e g a r e l l i contends that because h i s p r o p o s a l c o n f o r m e d t o a l l o f t h e D-2 r e q u i r e m e n t s , t h e C o m m i s s i o n was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o p r e v e n t t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h i s p r o j e c t . Mr. Z e g a r e l l i [ c ] i t e s a p l e t h o r a of cases t o the e f f e c t that a planning c o m m i s s i o n h a s no d i s c r e t i o n o r c h o i c e but to approve a subdivision which conforms to the r e g u l a t i o n s , a n d t h a t mandamus i s a p p r o p r i a t e when the d e v e l o p e r has c o m p l i e d w i t h a l l applicable o r d i n a n c e s . See, e . g . , S m i t h v. C i t y o f M o b i l e , 374 So. 2d 305, 307-08 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . The c o u r t f i n d s Mr. 7 2080470 Z e g a r e l l i ' s argument c o m p e l l i n g . I f h i s p r o p o s e d development complied w i t h the Montevallo Zoning O r d i n a n c e , t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o deny the development. " I n s u p p o r t o f h i s a r g u m e n t Mr. Z e g a r e l l i n o t e s w i t h i n c r e d u l i t y t h a t moments a f t e r h i s d e v e l o p m e n t was r e j e c t e d , t h e S h o a l C r e e k Cove d e v e l o p m e n t was approved. This fact was not lost on the c o m m i s s i o n e r s , as t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e m e e t i n g r e f l e c t the concern 'that there i s i n c o n s i s t e n c y i n denying M o n t e v a l l o Square and a p p r o v i n g t h e Hardy p r o p e r t y . ' I n d e f e n d i n g t h e s e two a c t i o n s , i . e . , t h e d e n i a l o f Mr. Z e g a r e l l i ' s d e v e l o p m e n t a n d t h e a p p r o v a l o f Mr. H a r d y ' s , t h e c i t y i n v o k e s vague n o t i o n s o f b r o a d authority, wide ranging discretion, and o t h e r f a c t o r s p e r t a i n i n g t o the i n d i v i d u a l development. The r e a s o n f o r t h e awkward p o s i t i o n i n w h i c h t h e city finds itself i s b r o u g h t t o l i g h t b y Mr. MacPherson i n h i s complaint f o r declaratory judgment, and l a i d b a r e i n t h e p l a n n i n g commission m e e t i n g m i n u t e s . Those m i n u t e s r e f l e c t t h a t one commissioner wished 'to d i s c u s s w i t h the developer about d e c r e a s i n g t h e development's d e n s i t y . ' Another ' o b j e c t s t o t h e d e n s i t y a n d does n o t s e e a m b i g u i t y i n t h e o r d i n a n c e . ' One o f t h e 'nay' v o t e s was c a s t f o r d e n i a l 'due t o g r o s s d e n s i t y . ' T h i s c o m m i s s i o n e r r e i t e r a t e d t h e r e a s o n f o r h i s 'nay' v o t e on t h e S h o a l C r e e k Cove d e v e l o p m e n t , stating 'that i t e x c e e d s f i v e u n i t s p e r a c r e . ' Had i t n o t b e e n f o r t h e mayor's 'aye' v o t e on t h e S h o a l C r e e k Cove p r o p o s a l , n e i t h e r p r o j e c t would have been a p p r o v e d because o f t h e Commission's stalemate over the z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e [ ' s ] d e n s i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r a D-2 Development D i s t r i c t Performance S u b d i v i s i o n . "The mayor, o t h e r c i t y o f f i c i a l s , and f o u r c o m m i s s i o n e r s deem t h e maximum d e n s i t y f a c t o r f o r P e r f o r m a n c e S u b d i v i s i o n s t o be '10 r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s per acre,' pursuant t o zoning ordinance A r t i c l e V I I I , S e c t i o n 3.C.(3). Four commissioners b e l i e v e t h e s t a t u t o r y l a n g u a g e a l l o w s t h e maximum d e n s i t y t o 8 2080470 be h a l f t h a t , o r a '[m]aximum g r o s s d e n s i t y o f f i v e dwelling u n i t s per acre,' pursuant to Section 3.C.(1). In support of the l a t [ t ] e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , the meeting minutes reflect one of the c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s s t a t e m e n t t h a t he 'does n o t s e e ambiguity i n the ordinance.' From t h i s t h e c o u r t infers that the four proponents of the f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a l o n g w i t h t h e mayor a n d o t h e r c i t y officials, f i n d some a m b i g u i t y i n the ordinance which permits them t o r e l y s o l e l y on p a r a g r a p h C.(3), 'maximum d e n s i t y f a c t o r o f 10 r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s p e r a c r e , ' and t o c o m p l e t e l y i g n o r e p a r a g r a p h C . ( 1 ) , 'maximum g r o s s d e n s i t y o f f i v e d w e l l i n g u n i t s p e r a c r e . ' B o t h Mr. Z e g a r e l l i a n d Mr. M a c P h e r s o n have p l a c e d t h i s i s s u e s q u a r e l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . " I t i s a long standing p r i n c i p l e of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n that courts are t o construe statutes (in t h i s t h e case t h e M o n t e v a l l o Zoning Ordinance) "'as a w h o l e , s o as t o h a r m o n i z e p a r t s i f p o s s i b l e . McRae v. P a c i f i c S e r v i c e s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 429 ( A l a Lee O p t i c a l Co. o f A l a b a m a v. S t a t e O p t o m e t r y , 288 A l a . 338, 261 So. (1972). their Homing 1993); Bd. o f 2d 17 "'"A statute [ordinance] is p a s s e d as a w h o l e a n d n o t i n p a r t s o r s e c t i o n s and i s animated by one general purpose and i n t e n t . Consequently, each p a r t o r s e c t i o n s h o u l d be c o n s t r u e d i n connection with every other part o r s e c t i o n s o as t o p r o d u c e a harmonious whole." "'2A Singer, Statutes and C o n s t r u c t i o n , § 46.05 ( 1 9 9 2 ) . ' Statutory "Karrh v. B o a r d of Control o f t h e Employees R e t i r e m e n t S y s t e m o f A l a b a m a , 679 So. 2d 669, 672 9 2080470 (Ala. 1996). "'"The fundamental rule of statutory construction i s to ascertain and g i v e e f f e c t to the intent of the l e g i s l a t u r e i n enacting the statute." IMED C o r p . v. S y s t e m s Eng'g A s s o c s . C o r p . , 602 So. 2d 344, 346 ( A l a . 1992). "'However, when p o s s i b l e , the i n t e n t of the l e g i s l a t u r e s h o u l d be g a t h e r e d f r o m t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e statute itself.'" Perry v. City of B i r m i n g h a m , 906 So. 2d 174, 176 ( A l a . 2005) ( q u o t i n g B e a v e r s v. W a l k e r C o u n t y , 645 So. 2d 1365, 1376 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) ) ; Ex p a r t e Lamar A d v e r t i s i n g Co., 849 So. 2d 928, 930 ( A l a . 2002). Therefore, i n "determining the m e a n i n g o f a s t a t u t e , we must b e g i n b y a n a l y z i n g the language o f the s t a t u t e . " Holcomb v . C a r r a w a y , 945 So. 2d 1009, 1018 (Ala. 2006). "'"Words u s e d i n a s t a t u e must be given their natural, plain, o r d i n a r y , a n d commonly u n d e r s t o o d m e a n i n g , a n d where p l a i n l a n g u a g e is used a c o u r t i s bound t o i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s . I f t h e language of the statute is u n a m b i g u o u s , t h e n t h e r e i s no room f o r j u d i c i a l construction and t h e c l e a r l y e x p r e s s e d i n t e n t o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must be g i v e n effect." "'IMED C o r p . , 602 So. 2d a t 346; s e e a l s o Wynn v. K o v a r , 963 So. 2d 84 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . S t a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y , when " t h e language of a statute i s plain and u n a m b i g u o u s , ... c o u r t s must e n f o r c e t h e s t a t u t e as w r i t t e n b y g i v i n g t h e w o r d s o f t h e s t a t u e t h e i r o r d i n a r y p l a i n m e a n i n g -10 2080470 t h e y must i n t e r p r e t t h a t l a n g u a g e t o mean e x a c t l y what i t s a y s a n d t h u s g i v e e f f e c t to the apparent i n t e n t of the L e g i s l a t u r e . " Ex p a r t e T.B., 698 So. 2d 127, 130 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) ; s e e a l s o P e r r y , 906 So. 2d a t 176; Ex p a r t e Lamar A d v e r t i s i n g Co., 849 So. 2d a t 930; B e a v e r s , 645 So. 2d a t 1376-77; Ex p a r t e U n i t e d S e r v . S t a t i o n s , I n c . , 628 So. 2d 501 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) ; a n d IMED C o r p . , 602 So. 2d a t 344. "'... "When d e t e r m i n i n g legislative i n t e n t from t h e language used i n a s t a t u e , a c o u r t may e x p l a i n t h e l a n g u a g e b u t i t may not d e t r a c t from o r add t o t h e s t a t u t e C o u r t s may n o t i m p r o v e a s t a t u t e , b u t may only e x p o u n d i t . " S i e g e l m a n [ v. Chase M a n h a t t a n Bank (USA), N a t ' l A s s ' n ] , 575 So. 2d [1041] a t 1045 [ ( A l a . 1 9 9 1 ) ] . "'These rules of statutory c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e i r c o r r e s p o n d i n g l i m i t s on t h i s c o u r t ' s a u t h o r i t y a r e f o u n d e d i n the separation-of-powers requirement of A r t . I I I , § 43, A l a . C o n s t . 1901 ( o f f . recomp.) As our supreme court has discussed: " ' " I t i s t r u e t h a t when l o o k i n g a t a s t a t u t e we m i g h t s o m e t i m e s think that the r a m i f i c a t i o n s of the words a r e i n e f f i c i e n t or u n u s u a l . However, i t i s o u r j o b t o s a y what t h e l a w i s , n o t t o s a y what i t s h o u l d b e . T h e r e f o r e , o n l y i f t h e r e i s no r a t i o n a l way t o i n t e r p r e t t h e w o r d s as s t a t e d w i l l we l o o k b e y o n d t h o s e words to determine l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . To a p p l y a d i f f e r e n t p o l i c y w o u l d turn this Court into a l e g i s l a t i v e body, and d o i n g t h a t , 11 2080470 of course, would be utterly inconsistent with the doctrine of separation o f powers. See Ex T B 698 So. 2d 127, 130 So 2d 127 T.B., 698 (Ala. 1997)." parte parte " ' D e [ K ] a l b C o u n t y LP Gas Co. v. S u b u r b a n Gas, I n c . , 729 So. 2d 270, 276 ( A l a . 1998).' "Alabama D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l Management v. L e g a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l A s s i s t a n c e F o u n d a t i o n , I n c . , 97 3 So. 2d 369, 376-77 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 7 ) . "Applying the principles of statutory c o n s t r u c t i o n and p l a i n language t o t h e p o r t i o n s o f the M o n t e v a l l o Zoning Ordinance a t i s s u e , the c o u r t f i n d s no a m b i g u i t y . W h i l e t h e c o u r t may n o t have u t i l i z e d the ordinances' o r g a n i z a t i o n , syntax or p h r a s e o l o g y , when r e a d i n i t s e n t i r e t y t h e r e c a n be o n l y one r e a s o n a b l e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o r c o n c l u s i o n : The maximum number o f u n i t s p e r m i t t e d by t h e M o n t e v a l l o Z o n i n g O r d i n a n c e i n a D-2 D e v e l o p m e n t D i s t r i c t f o r Performance S u b d i v i s i o n s i s determined by d e d u c t i n g f r o m t h e t o t a l a v a i l a b l e a c r e a g e 30 p e r c e n t o f t h a t a c r e a g e t o be u t i l i z e d f o r open s p a c e ('Minimum open s p a c e r a t i o o f 0 . 3 0 . ' ) . Up t o 38 p e r c e n t o f t h e open s p a c e a r e a may be u t i l i z e d f o r a l l i m p e r v i o u s s u r f a c e s ('Maximum i m p e r v i o u s surface ratio of 0.38'). Regardless of the i m p e r v i o u s s u r f a c e r a t i o , no more t h a n 70 p e r c e n t o f t h e t o t a l a r e a o f t h e s i t e may be c o n s i d e r e d as t h e buildable portion of that s i t e . On t h a t ' n e t b u i l d a b l e s i t e a r e a ' up t o 10 r e s i d e n t i a l ( d w e l l i n g ) u n i t s may o c c u p y a s i n g l e a c r e o f l a n d ('Maximum d e n s i t y f a c t o r o f 10 r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s p e r a c r e . ' ) . "While each o f t h e f o r e g o i n g p e r c e n t a g e s and ratios may vary from project to p r o j e c t , the f o u n d a t i o n a l d e n s i t y r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t c a n n o t be e x c e e d e d u n d e r any c i r c u m s t a n c e i s d e l i n e a t e d i n t h e f i r s t s e n t e n c e o f p a r a g r a p h C, w h i c h s t a t e s t h a t i n 12 2080470 P e r f o r m a n c e S u b d i v i s i o n s t h e r e i s a '[m]aximum g r o s s density of f i v e dwelling units per acre.' Gross density i s defined as the t o t a l number of r e s i d e n t i a l o r d w e l l i n g u n i t s d i v i d e d by t h e t o t a l s i t e acreage. For Performance S u b d i v i s i o n s the gross density i s unequivocally l i m i t e d to five units per acre. This c a l c u l a t i o n i s s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d and d e t e r m i n e s t h e maximum number o f r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s a v a i l a b l e f o r any g i v e n s i t e . I t i s by d e f i n i t i o n a 'gross' number of units that c a n r e a d i l y be determined, i r r e s p e c t i v e of the s p e c i f i c site c o n s t r a i n t s o r b u i l d i n g c o n d i t i o n s w h i c h must be c o n s i d e r e d when d e v e l o p i n g t h e o v e r a l l s i t e p l a n t o conform w i t h the other zoning requirements. " C o n t r a r y t o Mr. H a r d y ' s p o s i t i o n , t h e s p e c i f i e d d e n s i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s a r e n o t m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e . The o r d i n a n c e c o n t a i n s no ' e i t h e r , o r ' l a n g u a g e , a n d b o t h d e n s i t y r e q u i r e m e n t s must be s a t i s f i e d . The plain language of the zoning ordinance simply p r o v i d e s no e x c e p t i o n t o t h e maximum g r o s s d e n s i t y r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a P e r f o r m a n c e S u b d i v i s i o n i n a D-2 Development D i s t r i c t . When t h i s requirement i s a p p l i e d t o Mr. Z e g a r e l l i ' s p r o p o s a l f o r Phase One o f t h e M o n t e v a l l o S q u a r e p r o j e c t w h i c h w o u l d o c c u p y 5.3 a c r e s , a maximum o f 26 u n i t s c o u l d be c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e s i t e ( f i v e u n i t s p e r a c r e x 5.3 a c r e s = 26.5 u n i t s ) . The M o n t e v a l l o S q u a r e p r o p o s a l i n c l u d e d 49 townhomes t o be b u i l t on t h i s p o r t i o n o f t h e s i t e . Phase Two p r o v i d e d f o r 41 u n i t s t o be b u i l t on t h e remaining 4.38 a c r e s , while t h e maximum gross d e n s i t y r e q u i r e m e n t a l l o w s o n l y 21 u n i t s ( f i v e u n i t s p e r a c r e x 4.38 a c r e s = 21.9 u n i t s ) . "The S h o a l C r e e k Cove p r o j e c t c o n s i s t e d o f 15.88 s. P u r s u a n t t o t h e o r d i n a n c e , t h e maximum number acres. o f u n i t s t h a t may o c c u p y t h i s s i t e i s 79 (15.88 a c r e s x 5 u n i t s p e r a c r e = 79.4 u n i t s ) . Mr. H a r d y ' s S h o a l C r e e k Cove p r o j e c t c o m p r i s e d a t o t a l o f 132 u n i t s w h i c h i n c l u d e d 26 e x i s t i n g a p a r t m e n t s . The maximum g r o s s d e n s i t y r e q u i r e m e n t l i m i t s a d d i t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t on t h i s s i t e t o 53 u n i t s , r a t h e r t h a n 13 2080470 the 106 u n i t i n c r e a s e a p p r o v e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n . " "The court finds that i n each of the [ c o n s o l i d a t e d a c t i o n s ] t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , a n d t h a t j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w i s due t o be e n t e r e d . As n e i t h e r Mr. Z e g a r e l l i ' s M o n t e v a l l o S q u a r e p r o j e c t n o r Mr. H a r d y ' s Shoal C r e e k Cove p r o j e c t comply w i t h t h e maximum g r o s s d e n s i t y r e q u i r e m e n t as m a n d a t e d b y t h e C i t y o f Montevallo Zoning Ordinance, the M o n t e v a l l o P l a n n i n g and Z o n i n g C o m m i s s i o n h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o a p p r o v e e i t h e r p r o j e c t . A c c o r d i n g l y , Mr. Z e g a r e l l i ' s M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment i s DENIED, a n d t h e M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment f i l e d b y t h e C i t y o f M o n t e v a l l o i s GRANTED. Summary j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e C i t y o f M o n t e v a l l o a n d a g a i n s t Mr. Z e g a r e l l i . Consistent therewith, the Motion f o r Summary Judgment f i l e d b y Mr. H a r d y a n d t h e C i t y o f M o n t e v a l l o d e f e n d a n t s i s DENIED, a n d t h e M o t i o n f o r Summary Judgment f i l e d b y Mr. M a c P h e r s o n i s GRANTED. Summary j u d g m e n t i s h e r e b y e n t e r e d i n f a v o r o f Mr. M a c P h e r s o n a n d a g a i n s t Mr. H a r d y a n d t h e c i t y defendants. A l l other r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d by t h e p a r t i e s i s DENIED o r o t h e r w i s e r e n d e r e d Moot b y t h i s Order." (Capitalization i n original.) Zegarelli by filed a postjudgment m o t i o n , w h i c h was d e n i e d o p e r a t i o n of law pursuant t o Rule Z e g a r e l l i then t i m e l y appealed t o t h i s 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . P. 1 court. "We r e v i e w a summary j u d g m e n t de novo. American The t r i a l c o u r t p u r p o r t e d t o e n t e r an o r d e r d e n y i n g Z e g a r e l l i ' s postjudgment m o t i o n a f t e r i t had a l r e a d y been d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n o f law p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 59.1. 1 14 2080470 L i b e r t y Ins. (Ala. 2002). Co. v. AmSouth Bank, 825 So. 2d 786 "'We a p p l y t h e same s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w t h e t r i a l c o u r t used i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the evidence p r e s e n t e d to the trial court c r e a t e d a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Once a p a r t y m o v i n g f o r a summary j u d g m e n t establishes that no genuine issue of m a t e r i a l f a c t e x i s t s , the burden s h i f t s t o the nonmovant to present substantial evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. "Substantial evidence" i s " e v i d e n c e o f s u c h w e i g h t and q u a l i t y t h a t fair-minded persons i n the e x e r c i s e of i m p a r t i a l j u d g m e n t can r e a s o n a b l y i n f e r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e f a c t s o u g h t t o be p r o v e d . " I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , we v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and e n t e r t a i n s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw.' "Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.f v. DPF A r c h i t e c t s , P . C . ] , 792 So. 2d [369] a t 372 [ ( A l a . 2001)] (citations omitted), quoted i n American L i b e r t y I n s . Co., 825 So. 2d a t 790." P o t t e r v. F i r s t Real Estate Co., 844 So. 2d 540, 545 (Ala. 2002). Z e g a r e l l i argues t h a t the t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n t h a t the zoning maximum density Performance Further, o r d i n a n c e i s unambiguous w i t h of dwelling Subdivision Z e g a r e l l i says, in units a D-2 because 15 that can respect be built Development the zoning concluding to the in a District. ordinance is 2080470 ambiguous i n t h a t r e g a r d , townhouses language i t should p e r acre of the t o t a l i n the zoning ordinance density restriction further argues of 5 dwelling that, under be c o n s t r u e d site area imposing t o a l l o w 10 despite the a maximum-gross- u n i t s per acre. the construction Zegarelli of the zoning o r d i n a n c e he a d v o c a t e s , h i s s i t e p l a n c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , t h e C o m m i s s i o n h a d no a u t h o r i t y to withhold We court its approval. disagree erred with i n concluding unambiguous r e g a r d i n g that c a n be b u i l t Subdivision. zoning Z e g a r e l l i ' s argument the zoning t h e maximum d e n s i t y contains court the trial ordinance of dwelling i n a D-2 D e v e l o p m e n t D i s t r i c t As t h e t r i a l ordinance that that correctly units Performance pointed both a d e n s i t y - f a c t o r is out,the limit and a gross-density l i m i t , a n d b o t h o f t h o s e l i m i t s must be c o m p l i e d with. A r t i c l e I I I of the zoning ordinance defines the density f a c t o r as " t h e number o f u n i t s p e r n e t b u i l d a b l e s i t e and i t defines gross density as " [ t ] h e q u o t i e n t area," of the t o t a l number o f d w e l l i n g u n i t s d i v i d e d b y t h e t o t a l a r e a o f a s i t e . " A r t i c l e V I I I of the zoning ordinance provides density factor for a Performance 16 t h a t t h e maximum Subdivision in a D-2 2080470 Development District i s 10 d w e l l i n g u n i t s p e r a c r e and that t h e maximum g r o s s d e n s i t y i n s u c h a s u b d i v i s i o n i s 5 d w e l l i n g u n i t s per a c r e . Because the d e n s i t y f a c t o r i s t h e number o f d w e l l i n g u n i t s per net b u i l d a b l e acre of the s i t e while gross d e n s i t y i s t h e number o f d w e l l i n g u n i t s p e r a c r e o f t h e t o t a l s i t e area, the maximum-gross-density l i m i t of 5 d w e l l i n g u n i t s per acre limit does not c o n f l i c t o f 10 d w e l l i n g with the maximum-density-factor u n i t s p e r a c r e . A p r o p o s a l t o b u i l d 49 townhouses would not comply w i t h b o t h those l i m i t s u n l e s s t h e site had at least 4.9 townhouses divided townhouses per net b u i l d a b l e least 9.8 equals site by acres 4.9 of net (49 t o w n h o u s e s 5 townhouses per acre where Z e g a r e l l i buildable buildable acre) acres net and divided a total by of the t o t a l proposed acres area (49 equals 10 area of at 9.8 total acres site area) . 2 The t o b u i l d 49 t o w n h o u s e s h a d a L i k e w i s e , a p r o p o s a l t o b u i l d 41 t o w n h o u s e s w o u l d r e q u i r e a s i t e w i t h a n e t b u i l d a b l e a r e a o f a t l e a s t 4.1 a c r e s (41 t o w n h o u s e s d i v i d e d b y 4.1 n e t b u i l d a b l e a c r e s e q u a l s 10 t o w n h o u s e s p e r n e t b u i l d a b l e a c r e ) and a t o t a l a r e a o f a t l e a s t 8.2 a c r e s (41 t o w n h o u s e s d i v i d e d b y 8.2 t o t a l a c r e s e q u a l s 5 t o w n h o u s e s p e r a c r e ) . Thus, a p r o p o s a l t o b u i l d 90 townhouses would r e q u i r e a s i t e w i t h a n e t b u i l d a b l e a r e a o f a t l e a s t 9 a c r e s (90 t o w n h o u s e s d i v i d e d by 9 n e t b u i l d a b l e a c r e s e q u a l s 10 t o w n h o u s e s p e r n e t b u i l d a b l e a c r e ) and a t o t a l a r e a o f a t l e a s t 18 a c r e s (90 t o w n h o u s e s d i v i d e d by 18 t o t a l a c r e s e q u a l s 5 townhouses p e r a c r e of t h e t o t a l s i t e a r e a ) . 2 17 2080470 total area of only 5.3 acres. Therefore, i t d i d not w i t h the maximum-gross-density l i m i t of the zoning Accordingly, that the zoning the t r i a l ordinance ordinance. court d i d not e r r i n concluding was unambiguous, that Zegarelli's s i t e p l a n d i d not comply w i t h the z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e , Commission Zegarelli was was entitled to a summary judgment, n o t e n t i t l e d t o a summary j u d g m e n t . we a f f i r m t h e t r i a l comply court's t h a t the and that Therefore, judgment. AFFIRMED. Thompson, concur. P.J., and Pittman, 18 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.