City of Mobile and Mobile City Planning Commission v. Jeffrey Grizzard and Phil Gabriel (Appeal from Mobile Circuit Court: CV-10-902596)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel: 10/12/2012 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, 2012-2013 2110169 C i t y o f Mobile and Mobile C i t y Planning Commission v. Jeffrey G r i z z a r d and P h i l Gabriel 2110170 Roland F r a n c i s P r o p e r t i e s , LLC v. J e f f r e y G r i z z a r d and P h i l G a b r i e l Appeals from Mobile C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-902596) PITTMAN, J u d g e . In September 2010, Roland Francis P r o p e r t i e s , LLC ("RFP"), a p p l i e d t o t h e M o b i l e C i t y P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n ("the 2110169 and 2110170 Commission") for approval of a Planned Unit Development ("PUD") i n o r d e r t o b u i l d an a p a r t m e n t c o m p l e x i n M o b i l e . Commission approved RFP's application in The October 2010. N e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t y o w n e r s , J e f f r e y G r i z z a r d and P h i l G a b r i e l ("the PUD o p p o n e n t s " ) , to the Mobile action on opponents City appealed from the Commission's d e c i s i o n C o u n c i l , which November 3, filed in 2010. the On Mobile upheld the Commission's November 16, Circuit 2010, Court a the PUD complaint s e e k i n g a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t the Commission's a p p r o v a l o f RFP's application Code, and The 10 was in violation of § 64-5, Mobile r e q u e s t i n g i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f to h a l t the City PUD. c a s e came b e f o r e t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t f o r a b e n c h months later, in September 2011. In the trial meantime, c o n s t r u c t i o n on t h e PUD p r o j e c t had begun i n December 2010 was more t h a n October t w o - t h i r d s complete 4, 2011, at the time of t r i a l . and On the c i r c u i t c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment v o i d i n g t h e C o m m i s s i o n ' s a p p r o v a l o f t h e PUD t h a t s u c h a p p r o v a l v i o l a t e d § 64-5 o p p o n e n t s due p r o c e s s o f l a w . a p p l i c a t i o n on t h e g r o u n d and t h e r e b y d e n i e d t h e In a d d i t i o n , the c i r c u i t PUD court i n v a l i d a t e d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p e r m i t s t h a t had b e e n i s s u e d t o RFP and i s s u e d a stop-work order. 2 2110169 and 2110170 On O c t o b e r 10, 2011, an immediate judgment. stay The of RFP moved t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t t o i s s u e enforcement City of Mobile of i t s October and the municipal supreme c o u r t circuit court denied municipal parties November 9, and this parties filed from the 2011. circuit their The a November 10, pursuant 2011. 2011, separate appeals stay to the When the and the f o r a s t a y , RFP in the supreme court supreme c o u r t c o n s o l i d a t e d t h e t r a n s f e r r e d them, a l o n g court ("the c o u r t ' s judgment. requests sought Commission the municipal p a r t i e s " ) j o i n e d that motion. RFP 2011, On November 3, and 4, to On § w i t h the appeals motions f o r a stay, 12-2-7(6), November 29, on Ala. 2011, Code 1975, t h i s court the motions f o r a s t a y pending f u r t h e r order to on granted of t h i s court. Standard of Review "[T]he construction question of law." 661, So. 174 302 of M u n i c i p a l C o r p o r a t i o n s determination of correctness of the of law, on a Burnham v. 2d 301, interpretation of [municipal] ordinance C i t y of Mobile, (1965) (citing which i s not appeal." a 659, Law "The of ... trial court's an ordinance is a e n t i t l e d to a presumption Studio 3 Ala. 8 M c Q u i l l i n , The § 25.71). provisions 277 is 205, Inc. v. City of 2110169 and Brewton, 967 2110170 So. 2d 86, 87 (Ala. H o u s t o n C n t y . Comm'n, 507 So. 2d 902, 2007) 903 (citing Clark v. (Ala. 1987)). Discussion Section PUDs. 64-5 of the Mobile P a r a g r a p h A s e t s out Municipal t h e p u r p o s e s and Code deals o b j e c t i v e s of PUD: " 1 . P u r p o s e s . Under t h e r e g u l a t i o n s p r e s c r i b e d by this chapter f o r the various districts, a separate b u i l d i n g s i t e i s r e q u i r e d f o r each b u i l d i n g o t h e r t h a n an a c c e s s o r y b u i l d i n g . For the purpose o f a l l o w i n g and e n c o u r a g i n g v a r i e t y o f d e s i g n and f l e x i b i l i t y of l o c a t i o n f o r b u i l d i n g s c o m p r i s i n g a p l a n n e d u n i t d e v e l o p m e n t (PUD) u n d e r t h i s s e c t i o n , the requirement f o r a s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g s i t e f o r e a c h b u i l d i n g i s w a i v e d and t h e l a n d o c c u p i e d by t h e planned u n i t development i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be the b u i l d i n g s i t e f o r t h e g r o u p o f b u i l d i n g s as a w h o l e . " I t i s the f u r t h e r purpose of t h i s s e c t i o n to encourage the u n i f i e d development of t r a c t s of l a n d t h a t a r e s u i t a b l e i n s i z e , l o c a t i o n , and character f o r t h e u s e s and b u i l d i n g s p r o p o s e d . To t h a t end, the application of the district regulations g o v e r n i n g d e v e l o p m e n t on a l o t - b y - l o t basis is modified f o r planned u n i t developments, h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d PUDs, t h a t meet t h e o b j e c t i v e s and c o n f o r m t o the standards of t h i s s e c t i o n . " A l t h o u g h PUDs a r e most commonly m u l t i p l e - f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l p r o j e c t s , s u c h o t h e r b u i l d i n g g r o u p s as s h o p p i n g c e n t e r s and i n d u s t r i a l p a r k s , as w e l l as one-family r e s i d e n t i a l projects using innovative b u i l d i n g t y p e s and a r r a n g e m e n t s , may be d e s i g n e d and developed under t h i s s e c t i o n . 4 with a 2110169 and the 2110170 "2. O b j e c t i v e s . o b j e c t i v e s t o be In p u r s u i t of t h e s e purposes, met by a PUD a r e as f o l l o w s : "a. Creative design. To encourage innovative and diversified design in b u i l d i n g f o r m and s i t e d e v e l o p m e n t ; "b. Flexibility. To permit greater f l e x i b i l i t y i n t h e l o c a t i o n and a r r a n g e m e n t o f b u i l d i n g s and u s e s t h a n i s g e n e r a l l y p o s s i b l e under d i s t r i c t r e g u l a t i o n s ; " c . E f f i c i e n t l a n d u s e . To e n c o u r a g e t h e most e f f i c i e n t and s u s t a i n a b l e use o f l a n d , e s p e c i a l l y t r a c t s i n the i n n e r p a r t of the c i t y t h a t remain undeveloped or t h a t are appropriate for redevelopment; "d. E n v i r o n m e n t . To p r e s e r v e and p r o t e c t as u r b a n a m e n i t i e s t h e n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the l a n d ; "e. Open s p a c e . To e n c o u r a g e t h e p r o v i s i o n o f common open s p a c e t h r o u g h e f f i c i e n t s i t e design; "f. use and Paragraph limitations encompass B P u b l i c s e r v i c e s . To e n c o u r a g e optimum of a v a i l a b l e p u b l i c u t i l i t i e s , s t r e e t s community f a c i l i t i e s . " of to § 64-5 which matters a such sets PUD as out is the modifications subject. permitted uses "Modifications" and residential b u i l d i n g t y p e s w i t h i n v a r i o u s z o n i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , as as building-site " L i m i t a t i o n s " the area and yard f o l l o w i n g appears: 5 and requirements. well Under 2110169 a n d 2110170 "2. Limitations. Planned u n i t developments be s u b j e c t t o t h e f o l l o w i n g l i m i t a t i o n s : shall "a. S i z e o f t r a c t . The t r a c t o f l a n d t o be o c c u p i e d b y t h e PUD s h a l l be o f s u f f i c i e n t s i z e t o accommodate t h e p r o p o s e d u s e s a n d b u i l d i n g s i n a homogeneous a n d h a r m o n i o u s e n t i t y (as d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t y p i c a l l o t - b y - l o t development). "b. P u b l i c s e r v i c e s . No PUD s h a l l be approved u n l e s s the p l a n n i n g commission d e t e r m i n e s , upon a d v i c e o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i t i e s , t h a t t h e w a t e r , s a n i t a r y and drainage f a c i l i t i e s , a c c e s s s t r e e t s and f i r e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a d e q u a t e t o meet t h e demands o f t h e PUD." (Emphasis the added.) o f t h e PUD. B.2.b. o f § 64-5 Despite the emphasized that p l a n n i n g commission streets the agreed that Knollwood determines ... a r e a d e q u a t e Commission ... t h a t t o meet t h e demands in 5 t h e ... access o f t h e PUD" a p p r o v e d t h e PUD a p p l i c a t i o n on t h e c o n d i t i o n t o the access road, without which no c e r t i f i c a t e o f o c c u p a n c y w o u l d be i s s u e d . Deputy Director C i t y P l a n n i n g R i c h a r d O l s e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t , d u r i n g h i s 24 years of of language " [ n ] o PUD s h a l l be a p p r o v e d u n l e s s t h a t RFP make i m p r o v e m e n t s of Drive, a c c e s s r o a d l e a d i n g t o t h e PUD, was i n a d e q u a t e t o meet t h e demands the A l l parties employment w i t h t h e C i t y , t h e Commission t o approve PUD 6 i t had been t h e p r a c t i c e applications "subject t o " 2110169 and 2110170 certain conditions. T h a t p r a c t i c e , O l s e n s a i d , had b e e n b a s e d upon 5 D.2.c. o f § 64-5, which provides: "Action on development plan. Within a reasonable time, the planning commission shall approve, approve with modifications and/or c o n d i t i o n s , or d i s a p p r o v e the development p l a n . If approval of the development plan stipulates m o d i f i c a t i o n s or c o n d i t i o n s , such m o d i f i c a t i o n s or c o n d i t i o n s s h a l l be i l l u s t r a t e d on t h e d e v e l o p m e n t plan p r i o r to i t s submittal for permitting." (Emphasis added.) Further, Olsen s a i d , the m u n i c i p a l parties had c o n s i s t e n t l y i n t e r p r e t e d t h e p e r t i n e n t p r o v i s i o n s o f § 5 to a l l o w the at the same s a t i s f a c t i o n of c o n d i t i o n a l items t o time to as rather than before construction acknowledged services," require that that contemporaneously of fire with parties developer $300,000 in h a v i n g a PUD project of a proposed p r o j e c t . listed the project contend that would be willing improvements approval to the i n hand. 7 completed In f a c t , o n l y be itself. the "proceed itself," i n 5 B.2.b. as p r o t e c t i o n , can i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f 5 B.2.b. i g n o r e s no the c o n d i t i o n a l i t e m s be some i t e m s s u c h as municipal construction accomplished RFP PUD undertake access road Olsen "public and the opponents' the f i n a n c i a l r e a l i t y to 64¬ the that estimated without first 2110169 a n d 2110170 The continue PUD opponents to maintain argued on a p p e a l in the that, circuit pursuant court and t o 5 B.2.b., n e c e s s a r y i m p r o v e m e n t s t o t h e a c c e s s r o a d were r e q u i r e d t o be made b e f o r e t h e PUD a p p l i c a t i o n was approved and t h a t the Commission exceeded i t s a u t h o r i t y by c o n d i t i o n a l l y a p p r o v i n g the application when the access road was demonstrably inadequate. We a r e t h e r e f o r e specifically the adequate-access-street paragraph, states a PUD r e q u i r e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r 5 B.2.b., provision of that a s i n e qua non r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a p p r o v a l o f application or whether the adequate-access-street p r o v i s i o n o f 5 B.2.b. c a n be t h e s u b j e c t o f an " a p p r o v a l c o n d i t i o n s " p u r s u a n t t o 5 D.2.c. " C i t y o r d i n a n c e s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e same g e n e r a l rules of construction, as are acts of the Legislature. S & S D i s t r i b . Co. v. Town o f New Hope, 334 So. 2d 905 ( A l a . 1 9 7 6 ) . I n J o h n D e e r e Co. v. Gamble, 523 So. 2d 95, 99-100 ( A l a . 1 9 8 8 ) , [ o u r supreme c o u r t ] , q u o t i n g C l a r k v. H o u s t o n C o u n t y Comm'n, 507 So. 2d 902, 903-04 ( A l a . 1 9 8 7 ) , s e t o u t the following general rules of statutory c o n s t r u c t i o n , which also apply t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n of m u n i c i p a l o r d i n a n c e s : "'"The f u n d a m e n t a l r u l e o f s t a t u t o r y construction i s to ascertain and give e f f e c t to the i n t e n t of the [ c i t y council] i n enacting the [ordinance]. Advertiser Co. v. H o b b i e , 474 So. 2d 93 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; 8 with 2110169 a n d 2110170 L e a g u e o f Women V o t e r s v . R e n f r o , 292 A l a . 128, 290 So. 2d 167 ( 1 9 7 4 ) . I f p o s s i b l e , t h e i n t e n t o f t h e [ c i t y c o u n c i l ] s h o u l d be gathered from t h e language of the [ordinance] itself. A d v e r t i s e r Co. v . Hobbie, supra; Morgan C o u n t y B o a r d o f Education v. Alabama Public School & C o l l e g e A u t h o r i t y , 362 So. 2d 850 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) . I f t h e [ o r d i n a n c e ] i s ambiguous o r uncertain, the court may consider c o n d i t i o n s which might a r i s e under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e [ o r d i n a n c e ] and examine results that w i l l f l o w from g i v i n g t h e l a n g u a g e i n q u e s t i o n one p a r t i c u l a r m e a n i n g r a t h e r than another. Studdard v. South C e n t r a l B e l l T e l e p h o n e Co., 356 So. 2d 139 (Ala. 1 9 7 8 ) ; L e a g u e o f Women V o t e r s v . Renfro, supra."'" Ex p a r t e C i t y o f Orange B e a c h B d . o f A d j u s t m e n t , 51, 55-56 ( A l a . 2 0 0 1 ) . word or phrase rendered be g i v e n meaning so t h a t no p a r t i s & J.D. Shambie S i n g e r , Sutherland S t a t u t o r y C o n s t r u c t i o n § 30:6 ( 7 t h e d . 2009) omitted). 1227, 1A Statutes (footnotes "[T]he whole [ordinance] under c o n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d e x a m i n e d and, effect." each s h o u l d be r e a d i n p a r i m a t e r i a when r e l e v a n t . " Norman J . S i n g e r be "When i n t e r p r e t i n g an o r d i n a n c e , void, superfluous, contradictory, or i n s i g n i f i c a n t . Ordinances and must 833 So. 2d i f p o s s i b l e , each Employees' Ret. 1228 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) . word, s e n t e n c e , section should be g i v e n S y s . o f A l a b a m a v . Head, 369 So. 2d "'"'There i s a presumption o r p r o v i s i o n [ o f an o r d i n a n c e ] 9 that every was i n t e n d e d 2110169 a n d 2110170 for some u s e f u l p u r p o s e , h a s some f o r c e a n d e f f e c t , some effect i s t o be given to each, and and t h a t also that s u p e r f l u o u s words o r p r o v i s i o n s were u s e d . S u r t e e s Ventures, I n c . , 8 So. 3d 950, 970 no v. V F J ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e U n i r o y a l T i r e Co., 779 So. 2d 227, 236 ( A l a . 2 0 0 0 ) , q u o t i n g i n t u r n S h e f f i e l d v. S t a t e , 708 So. 2d 899, 909 (Ala. C r i m . App. 1 9 9 7 ) ) . " I n s t e a d o f t a k i n g one i s o l a t e d a n d n a r r o w l y c o n s t r u e d s e n t e n c e o f [a s e c t i o n i n an o r d i n a n c e ] , we should look to the e n t i r e framework o f t h e [ o r d i n a n c e ] , t h e i n t e n t s a n d p u r p o s e s o f t h e [ o r d i n a n c e ] a n d t h e means b y w h i c h it has been g i v e n its years 393, construction, effect of existence." Jordan 401, 71 So. 2d 513, 520 Application leads us to interpretation constrained. [PUDS]"), available v. C i t y o f M o b i l e , the of conclusion 5 B.2.b. that and the PUD opponents' narrow and ignores the i n t e n t of the from t h e language of t h e ordinance, ("to e n c o u r a g e t h e u n i f i e d d e v e l o p m e n t o f 5 A.2.f. public 260 A l a . of construction i s impermissibly Their interpretation 5 A.1 during (1954). of the foregoing p r i n c i p l e s c i t y c o u n c i l , as g a t h e r e d specifically and o p e r a t i o n ("[t]o utilities, 10 encourage optimum streets and use of community 2110169 and 2110170 facilities"). The interpretation advocated opponents a l s o d i s r e g a r d s the r e s u l t s t h a t from giving 5 B.2.b. the Commission implicitly application meaning c o n d i t i o n e d on they recognized later actually discourage undertake costly t h a t t h e i r PUD importantly, opponents offsite the of the PUD likely will flow suggest. As the the PUD improvement of because few developers improvements w i t h o u t reading of 5 B.2.b. room f o r the Mobile City the access opponents propose p r o p o s a l had b e e n a p p r o v e d . l e a v e s no provision PUDs the approving in r o a d , t o c o n s t r u e 5 B.2.b. as t h e PUD by the o p e r a t i o n of Code that, would assurance Finally, advocated would by and most the 5 D.2.c., the PUD a evidence i n d i c a t e d , t h e C o m m i s s i o n had r e l i e d upon f o r d e c a d e s w i t h o u t challenge. 1 "Instead of taking one isolated and narrowly RFP p o i n t s o u t i n i t s a p p e l l a t e b r i e f t h a t , a f t e r t h e e n t r y of the c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment i n t h i s case, the C i t y amended 5 B.2.b. on J a n u a r y 10, 2012, t o r e a d as f o l l o w s : 1 "B. M o d i f i c a t i o n s and limitations. "2. L i m i t a t i o n s . P l a n n e d u n i t d e v e l o p m e n t s s h a l l subject to following l i m i t a t i o n s : b. Public services. No PUD shall be approved u n l e s s the p l a n n i n g commission d e t e r m i n e s , upon a d v i c e o f t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i t i e s , t h a t t h e w a t e r , s a n i t a r y and 11 be 2110169 and 2110170 c o n s t r u e d s e n t e n c e o f [5 B . 2 . b . ] , we s h o u l d l o o k t o t h e drainage facilities, access streets f i r e p r o t e c t i o n a r e a d e q u a t e t o meet demands o f t h e PUD. entire and the "Provided, however, that the planning c o m m i s s i o n may a p p r o v e a PUD prior to c o n s t r u c t i o n of such f a c i l i t i e s , access s t r e e t s and f i r e p r o t e c t i o n as recommended by t h e a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i t i e s t o meet t h e demands of the PUD, i f the planning commission s p e c i f i e s the completion of such recommended improvements prior to the i s s u a n c e o f a C e r t i f i c a t e o f O c c u p a n c y as a c o n d i t i o n o f t h e PUD a p p r o v a l . "II. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCE. " A l l Ordinances or p a r t s of Ordinances i n c o n f l i c t w i t h the p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s Ordinance, i n s o f a r as they c o n f l i c t , are hereby r e p e a l e d . " A popular treatise states: "An amendment which in effect construes and c l a r i f i e s a p r i o r s t a t u t e must be a c c e p t e d as t h e legislative d e c l a r a t i o n of the meaning of the o r i g i n a l a c t , where t h e amendment was a d o p t e d s o o n a f t e r the c o n t r o v e r s y arose c o n c e r n i n g the proper i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e . T h i s has l e d c o u r t s t o l o g i c a l l y c o n c l u d e t h a t an amendment was a d o p t e d t o make p l a i n what t h e l e g i s l a t i o n had b e e n a l l along from the time of the statute's original enactment." 1A Singer & Singer, Sutherland Statutes C o n s t r u c t i o n § 22:31 (footnotes omitted). 12 and Statutory 2110169 and 2110170 framework of [§ 6 4 - 5 ] , t h e i n t e n t s and and t h e means by w h i c h i t has and operation Ala. during a t 401, The 71 So. interpretation opponents is not been g i v e n i t s years 2d a t of the C i t y of 5 B.2.b. their reading 5 B.2.b. as power to evidently authority of the Bryan, the PUD 505 with a on PUD the So. The PUD 330 cite unsupported (Ala. prerequisites p r i o r to approval." Presumably, the 505 Commission's The circuit p r e r e q u i s i t e " t h a t had i n Bryan to the b e e n a c c o m p l i s h e d by RFP not of administrative circuit court following " ' [ O ] r d i n a n c e s r e g u l a t i n g PUDs w h i c h must be So. 1987), i n defense a g r e e d , because i t s judgment q u o t e d the specific PUD PUD the opponents i n t e r p r e t are i n t e n d e d to p r o t e c t n e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t y the by well-established 2d application. s t a t e m e n t by t h e B r y a n c o u r t : out 260 i t i s also opponents ordinance. a limitation approve effect Jordan, advanced inconsistent T u s c a l o o s a v. primary construction, existence." p r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n , by [5 D.2.c.] 520. of only purposes of 2d a t 336 court b e e n met owners by s e t t i n g met by applicants (emphasis added). analogized the p r i o r to the "specific approval a c c e s s - r o a d i m p r o v e m e n t t h a t had i n the p r e s e n t case. 13 of not B r y a n , however, 2110169 a n d 2110170 i s d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e because i t addressed a completely question from municipality approved the had v i o l a t e d a PUD requirements question that of presented i t s own here: zoning zoning with another ordinance. ordinance, a when i t comply w i t h t h e p r e r e q u i s i t e " t h a t h a d n o t b e e n met i n B r y a n , compliance whether ordinance d i d not s u b s t a n t i a l l y that different The "specific t h e r e f o r e , was specifically, a zoning o r d i n a n c e , w i t h o u t w h i c h t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y h a d no a u t h o r i t y t o a p p r o v e t h e PUD. I n B r y a n o u r supreme c o u r t s t a t e d : " N o t w i t h s t a n d i n g i t s f l e x i b i l i t y , a PUD must s t i l l f i t i n t o a m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s comprehensive zoning p l a n . C l e a r l y , o r d i n a n c e s r e g u l a t i n g PUDs a r e i n t e n d e d t o p r o t e c t n e i g h b o r i n g p r o p e r t y owners b y s e t t i n g o u t specific p r e r e q u i s i t e s which must be met by a p p l i c a n t s p r i o r t o approval. Compliance w i t h these prerequisites serves t o i n s u r e t h a t a PUD, as proposed, w i l l f i t i n t o the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s e x i s t i n g c o m p r e h e n s i v e z o n i n g p l a n . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e must be c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e o r d i n a n c e . 82 Am. J u r . 2d Z o n i n g and P l a n n i n g , [§ 106 ( 1 9 7 6 ) ] . " 505 So. 2d a t 336 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . The q u o t e f r o m B r y a n t h a t appears i n t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s judgment and t h a t i s emphasized above i s an a b b r e v i a t e d v e r s i o n o f o u r supreme c o u r t ' s h o l d i n g taken out of context In contrast prerequisite" from t h e passage to the s i t u a t i o n i n which i n Bryan, the t h a t RFP h a d n o t met when i t s PUD 14 i t appears. "specific application 2110169 and 2110170 was a p p r o v e d t h e a c c e s s - r o a d improvement qua non r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a p p r o v a l not deprive PUD. That the Commission of the a u t h o r i t y 1977), our Corp. supreme v. court i n an limitations the conditions." Vann, 345 stated that, "[i]n exercising i t s any [PUD], t h e C o m m i s s i o n administrative on the "with f u n c t i o n approving or disapproving acts t o approve 5 D.2.c. a u t h o r i z e d i s so p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e Boulder was n o t a s i n e o f RFP's a p p l i c a t i o n and d i d Commission t o approve the p r o j e c t In So. capacity, i t s authority 2d and contained 272, 275 i s bound i n the (Ala. by any legislation a u t h o r i z i n g i t t o a c t . " B e c a u s e 5 D.2.c. b r o a d e n s r a t h e r t h a n limits the a u t h o r i t y of the Commission t o a p p r o v e a PUD by a l l o w i n g an a p p r o v a l " w i t h c o n d i t i o n s , " 5 D.2.c. must be r e a d in p a r i materia 5 B.2.b. t o t h e e n d t h a t e a c h p r o v i s i o n is "given void, with meaning so t h a t superfluous, Singer & Because ordinance contradictory, Singer, Construction § no p a r t Sutherland [of § or 64-5] i s rendered insignificant." Statutes and 1A Statutory 30:6. the circuit erroneously court's overlooked construction the e f f e c t p r o v i s i o n that expressly allows approval 15 of the PUD o f 5 D.2.c., a o f a PUD a p p l i c a t i o n 2110169 a n d 2110170 " w i t h c o n d i t i o n s , " i t s judgment i s r e v e r s e d and t h e cause i s remanded. Our d i s p o s i t i o n of these appeals renders the p r e v i o u s l y i m p o s e d s t a y o f t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t moot. 2110169 REVERSED AND REMANDED. 2110170 REVERSED AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 16 Thomas, a n d 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.