Gibbons v. Town of Vincent
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Supreme Court of Alabama?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Supreme Court of Alabama. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Anne Bates Gibbons appealed a circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Town of Vincent ("the Town"), the town's planning commission, and White Rock Quarries, LLC ("White Rock") (collectively, "appellees"). This matter stemmed from a zoning change impacting 86 acres of undeveloped land owned by White Rock that were annexed into the Town. Gibbons's complaint challenged the Town's rezoning of the land based on a rezoning application submitted by White Rock and its annexation of the 86 acres. White Rock sought the rezoning and annexation so that it could construct and operate a rock quarry on the property. Gibbons alleged that the Town did not satisfy the notice requirements of the applicable statutes that give municipal corporations in Alabama the power to enact zoning ordinances and that set out the requirements for enacting such ordinances in adopting a 2009 amendment. In the alternative, assuming that the 2009 amendment was validly adopted, Gibbons sought a declaration that White Rock's proposed use of the land was covered under section 5.5, not section 5.14.5, of the Town's zoning code. The circuit court ultimately granted appellees' motion for summary judgment, and Gibbons appealed. Finding that the Town complied with the applicable statutes in its annexation of the 86 acres, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the appellees.
Download PDF
Rel: 12/21/2012 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 1110400 Anne Bates Gibbons v. Town o f V i n c e n t e t a l . Appeal from Shelby C i r c u i t Court (CV-10-900169) PARKER, Anne Justice. Bates Gibbons appeals t h e Shelby Circuit summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e Town o f V i n c e n t Court's ("the Town"), t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n o f t h e Town o f V i n c e n t ( " t h e p l a n n i n g 1110400 commission"), 1 and White Rock Quarries, LLC ("White Rock") ( h e r e i n a f t e r c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o as " t h e a p p e l l e e s " ) . We affirm. F a c t s and P r o c e d u r a l H i s t o r y W h i t e Rock owns 888 a c r e s within the corporate limits acres of undeveloped land originally situated of undeveloped land o f t h e Town adjacent i n an situated ("the l a n d " ) t o t h e 888 unincorporated a n d 86 acres area in and Shelby C o u n t y , o u t s i d e t h e Town's c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s ; t h e 86 a c r e s h a s been annexed limits. the b y t h e Town w i t h i n i t s corporate G i b b o n s ' s c o m p l a i n t c h a l l e n g e d t h e Town's r e z o n i n g o f l a n d b a s e d on a r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n Rock a n d i t s a n n e x a t i o n the a n d i s now rezoning o f t h e 86 a c r e s . and a n n e x a t i o n 2009 t o which the land was sought c o n s t r u c t and Relevant i s an amendment t o t h e Town's z o n i n g pursuant by White W h i t e Rock so t h a t i t c o u l d o p e r a t e a r o c k q u a r r y on t h e p r o p e r t y . claims submitted t o Gibbons's code a d o p t e d i n rezoned ("the 2 0 0 9 amendment") a n d t h e p r o c e s s b y w h i c h t h e Town a d o p t e d t h e 2 0 0 9 A t a l l t i m e s r e l e v a n t t o t h i s a p p e a l , t h e members o f t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n were M a r y L e e R e y n o l d s , Don D r i g g e r s , E r n e s t K i d d , E v e l y n F i n n , J i m H a i r s t o n , and Marsh A c k e r ; R o b e r t M a l o n e was a p p o i n t e d t o t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n i n June 2010. 1 2 1110400 amendment. Specifically, Gibbons a l l e g e s t h a t the not s a t i s f y the n o t i c e requirements municipal corporations ordinances Town d i d of the s t a t u t e s t h a t g i v e i n A l a b a m a t h e power t o e n a c t and t h a t s e t o u t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s ordinances, § 11-52-70 e t s e q . , statutes"), i n adopting the zoning f o r e n a c t i n g such A l a . Code 1975 ("the zoning 2009 amendment. J o y M a r l e r , t h e Town's c l e r k , t e s t i f i e d by a f f i d a v i t on May 15, 2009, she p o s t e d n o t i c e of a p u b l i c h e a r i n g to h e l d by t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n on June 9, of the June 9, comments on and 2009, public hearing consider updating c o p y o f t h e 2009 amendment was t h e June 9, that 2009; was to 2 be the purpose hear t h e Town's z o n i n g public code. A made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t 2009, p u b l i c h e a r i n g . M a r l e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t on June 24, 2009, she p o s t e d n o t i c e of another public hearing to be held by the planning c o m m i s s i o n on J u l y 14, 2 0 0 9 ; t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e J u l y 14, p u b l i c h e a r i n g was t o h e a r p u b l i c comments on and t o u p d a t i n g t h e Town's z o n i n g c o d e . 2009, consider A c o p y o f t h e 2009 amendment G i b b o n s has n o t c h a l l e n g e d t h e c o n t e n t o f any o f t h e n o t i c e s p o s t e d by t h e Town, o n l y t h e t i m e l i n e s s o f the n o t i c e s . T h e r e f o r e , we a r e n o t i n c l u d i n g any f a c t s c o n c e r n i n g t h e c o n t e n t o f t h e n o t i c e s o r where t h e n o t i c e s were p o s t e d . 2 3 1110400 was made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t t h e J u l y 14, 2009, p u b l i c hearing. Marler notice ("the testified that of a p u b l i c hearing council") 3 on on August 2009, she posted t o be h e l d b y t h e Town's c o u n c i l September 1, September 1, 2009, p u b l i c h e a r i n g on and t o c o n s i d e r 11, 2009; the purpose of the was t o h e a r p u b l i c comments t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e 2009 amendment. A copy o f t h e 2009 amendment was made a v a i l a b l e t o t h e p u b l i c a t t h e September 1, 2009, p u b l i c Marler testified hearing. that on S e p t e m b e r 9, 2009, she posted n o t i c e o f t h e c o u n c i l ' s r e g u l a r m e e t i n g t o o c c u r on September 22, 2 0 0 9 ; on t h e agenda among other ordinance." September Marler things, Marler f o r the c o u n c i l ' s was testified "updating the regular meeting, present t h a t a t i t s r e g u l a r m e e t i n g on 22, 2009, t h e c o u n c i l a d o p t e d t h e 2009 also t e s t i f i e d t h e Town's z o n i n g zoning amendment. t h a t on September 23, 2009, she p o s t e d c o d e , w h i c h i n c l u d e d t h e c h a n g e s made b y t h e c o u n c i l ' s p a s s a g e o f t h e 2009 amendment. T h e c o u n c i l i s composed o f f i v e members who a r e e l e c t e d b y d i s t r i c t ; a t t h e t i m e o f t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e 2009 amendment, t h o s e members were J o h n n y E d w a r d s , R a l p h B. K i m b l e , Jr., Larry King, Bridgette J o r d a n S m i t h , and M a r y Lee Reynolds. The mayor o f t h e Town i s a l s o a member o f t h e c o u n c i l , w h i c h i s t h e Town's m u n i c i p a l l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y . 3 4 1110400 On O c t o b e r 2 1 , 2009, W h i t e Rock f i l e d an a p p l i c a t i o n w i t h the Town requesting "agricultural district" that district" pursuant t h e Town and " r u r a l rezone the land residential" from to "special t o § 5.14 o f t h e Town's z o n i n g code a n d a l l o w W h i t e Rock t o c o n s t r u c t a n d o p e r a t e a r o c k q u a r r y on t h e land ("the r e z o n i n g Town's zoning response application"). code was t o a request added by Section 5.14.5 o f t h e t h e 2009 b y t h e Town, W h i t e amendment. Rock In amended i t s r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n on November 3, 2009, w i t h a s u r v e y o f t h e land, as w e l l as t h e 86 a c r e s Shelby area of County. The zoning i n the unincorporated Town does n o t employ applications. land planners Instead, land planners County Department o f Development S e r v i c e s t h e Town w i t h l a n d - p l a n n i n g agreement. County planning issues pursuant commission of Development and reviewing the rezoning application. with and a s s i s t to a contractual with the Shelby Services, the c o u n c i l with at the Shelby advise K r i s t i n e Goddard, a l a n d p l a n n e r Department to assist a s s i s t e d the processing and 4 T h e Town a n d t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n a l l e g e i n t h e i r b r i e f on a p p e a l t h a t t h e Town h a s a v a l i d l y c r e a t e d " Z o n i n g Board o f Adjustment t h a t can hear appeals, grant v a r i a n c e s t o the z o n i n g code, and a l l o w s p e c i a l e x c e p t i o n s t o t h e z o n i n g 4 5 1110400 Marler testified that on J a n u a r y 12, 2010, she p o s t e d n o t i c e o f a h e a r i n g t o be h e l d b y t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n on J a n u a r y 26, 2 0 1 0 ; t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e J a n u a r y 26, 2010, p u b l i c hearing was to application. receive public The p l a n n i n g comment commission on held the rezoning t h e J a n u a r y 26, 2010, p u b l i c h e a r i n g , a n d f o l l o w i n g t h a t p u b l i c h e a r i n g , t h e planning c o m m i s s i o n h e l d two "work s e s s i o n s " on F e b r u a r y 1, 2010, a n d M a r c h 4, 2010. The p u r p o s e o f t h e w o r k s e s s i o n s was to "discuss ( i ) the [rezoning recommendations ( i i )the d r a f t a n d r e p o r t f r o m Ms. K r i s t i n e G o d d a r d on b e h a l f of t h e S h e l b y County Department the P l a n n i n g application], Commission, o f Development S e r v i c e s and a n d ( i i i ) comments r e c e i v e d a t t h e J a n u a r y 26, 2010, p u b l i c h e a r i n g . " On February 16, 2010, the council held a regularly s c h e d u l e d m e e t i n g , w h i c h members o f t h e p l a n n i n g commission and t h e Z o n i n g B o a r d o f A d j u s t m e n t f o r t h e Town ("the ZBA") c o d e . " The Town a n d t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n ' s b r i e f , a t p. 6. The Town a n d t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n c i t e t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n of facts i n support of t h i s a s s e r t i o n . Although t h e v a l i d c r e a t i o n o f t h e Town's Z o n i n g B o a r d o f A d j u s t m e n t ("the ZBA") was d i s p u t e d b y G i b b o n s i n t h e p a r t i e s ' j o i n t s t i p u l a t i o n o f f a c t s , i n h e r b r i e f on a p p e a l G i b b o n s does n o t d i s p u t e t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e ZBA, b u t a p p e a r s t o c o n c e d e t h a t i t was v a l i d l y c r e a t e d . See G i b b o n s ' s b r i e f , a t pp. 10, 30¬ 32. 6 1110400 attended. Discussed a t t h e m e e t i n g was the p o t e n t i a l impact o f t h e r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n on p r o p e r t y a d j a c e n t t o t h e l a n d , w h i c h i s owned by EBSCO I n d u s t r i e s . On F e b r u a r y 26, 2010, Gibbons, as a p r o p e r t y r e s i d e n t o f t h e Town, f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t the p l a n n i n g directing the commission. Town and Gibbons the and a g a i n s t t h e Town and sought a w r i t planning owner o f mandamus commission "to cease c o n s i d e r i n g the [ r e z o n i n g ] [ a ] p p l i c a t i o n under the p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 5.14.5 o f t h e [Town's z o n i n g c o d e ] , [ ] 5 5 S e c t i o n 5.14.5 o f t h e Town's z o n i n g and i n s t e a d code p r o v i d e s : "5.14.5 O t h e r U s e s "Uses n o t c o v e r e d i n o t h e r s e c t i o n s . S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t s f o r uses not covered elsewhere i n t h i s o r d i n a n c e and w h i c h a r e g e n e r a l l y o f a n a t u r e so as t o be i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h most p e r m i t t e d u s e s may be a l l o w e d i n any d i s t r i c t e x c e p t t h e 'R' d i s t r i c t . The location shall be recommended by the Planning C o m m i s s i o n and a p p r o v e d by t h e Town C o u n c i l . I n a d d i t i o n , a c o m p l e t e d e v e l o p m e n t p l a n and any o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n p e r t i n e n t t o the development o r use s h a l l be i n c l u d e d a t t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e P l a n n i n g Commission. Such u s e s may i n c l u d e but are not l i m i t e d to the f o l l o w i n g : "1) A i r p o r t o r l a n d i n g "2) field Mausoleum "3) Commercial, amusement d e v e l o p m e n t seasonable periods. 7 recreational f o r temporary or or 1110400 begin i t s review of the [rezoning] [a]pplication anew i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f S e c t i o n 5.5 o f t h e [Town's zoning code].[ ]" 6 I n her complaint, Gibbons also sought a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g § 5.14.5 o f t h e z o n i n g code v o i d ab i n i t i o ; "4) Sanitary l a n d f i l l operation "5) P r a c t i c e g o l f d r i v i n g range, p a r three golf course or miniature golf course." Section 5.5 o f t h e Town's " U n c l a s s i f i e d Uses," p r o v i d e s : 6 zoning code, entitled " I n t h e e v e n t t h e Town o f V i n c e n t r e c e i v e s an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r p e r m i t t i n g of a use t h a t i s not listed or that cannot a p p r o p r i a t e l y f i t i n a d i s t r i c t l i s t e d [ i n S e c t i o n 5.1 o f t h e Town's z o n i n g ordinance], the f o l l o w i n g procedure s h a l l apply: " I f compatible w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g use d i s t r i c t i n t e n t , t h e u n c l a s s i f i e d u s e may be p e r m i t t e d as a special exception by t h e B o a r d of Adjustment p u r s u a n t t o A r t i c l e 14. " I f t h e u n c l a s s i f i e d u s e w o u l d n o t be c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e i n t e n t of t h e e x i s t i n g use d i s t r i c t , the P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n s h a l l make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e most a p p r o p r i a t e u s e d i s t r i c t a n d r e q u i r e t h e a p p l i c a n t have t h e p r o p e r t y r e z o n e d , and s p e c i a l exception granted by t h e B o a r d of Adjustment p u r s u a n t t o A r t i c l e 14 b e f o r e g r a n t i n g a p p r o v a l . " F o l l o w i n g f i n a l a c t i o n o f t h e u n c l a s s i f i e d use p e r above p a r a g r a p h s , t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n may i n i t i a t e an amendment t o t h i s o r d i n a n c e t o l i s t t h e newly permitted u s e i n t h e most appropriate district(s)." 8 1110400 specifically, notice G i b b o n s a l l e g e d t h a t t h e Town d i d n o t meet t h e requirements of adopting § 11-52-77, t h e 2009 amendment. A l a . Code 1975, I n the a l t e r n a t i v e , before assuming t h a t t h e 2009 amendment was v a l i d l y a d o p t e d , G i b b o n s s o u g h t a declaration covered On t h a t White Rock's p r o p o s e d use of the land i s u n d e r § 5.5, n o t § 5.14.5, o f t h e Town's z o n i n g March 23, 2010, the planning commission s p e c i a l l y c a l l e d m e e t i n g t o v o t e on t h e r e z o n i n g code. held a application. The p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n u n a n i m o u s l y a g r e e d t o recommend t h a t the c o u n c i l "approve amend t h e [ t h e r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n ] as [Town's] C o m p r e h e n s i v e rezoning the modified, P l a n and a d o p t an [ l a n d ] t o S p e c i a l Use ordinance District." On A p r i l 6, 2010, W h i t e R o c k p e t i t i o n e d t h e Town t o annex the 86 acres situated outside ("the annexation petition"). filed a motion to intervene the On A p r i l On May 28, 2010, proposed ordinances White corporate 14, 2010, limits White i n Gibbons's a c t i o n a g a i n s t Town and t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n . W h i t e R o c k ' s m o t i o n on J u n e Town's 9, The c i r c u i t court Rock the granted 2010. Rock presented to the c o u n c i l g r a n t i n g t h e r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n and t h e a n n e x a t i o n p e t i t i o n ("the White Rock o r d i n a n c e s " ) . 9 On J u n e 1, 1110400 2010, the White c o u n c i l h e l d a p u b l i c work s e s s i o n t o d i s c u s s Rock ordinances. Following the work session, the a r e g u l a r l y s c h e d u l e d c o u n c i l m e e t i n g was h e l d , d u r i n g w h i c h t h e White Rock council ordinances for the were first introduced The w h e t h e r n o t i c e f o r t h i s m e e t i n g was read parties to be 2010, t h e p u b l i c h e a r i n g was On July 7, session of the purpose of the 15, 2010, by the 2010, Marler council special to White p u b l i c h e a r i n g was held. posted held s e s s i o n was and special be to vote September 21, notice of July 15, on to read conference orally at which, b i f u r c a t e d the the case the into substantive due-process i s s u e s . 10 agree, 2010; the discuss the At the and them. court held a status the procedural The special considered council circuit parties and a on t h e i r a d o p t i o n . s e s s i o n , the 2010, of the v o t e d on t h e W h i t e R o c k o r d i n a n c e s , p a s s i n g On indicate c o u n c i l ; the purpose t o h e a r p u b l i c comments on The J u n e 17, 2010, White Rock o r d i n a n c e s July not the M a r l e r posted n o t i c e of a p u b l i c h e a r i n g h e l d on J u n e 17, Rock o r d i n a n c e s . do before posted. On J u n e 2, 2010, time. and circuit court due-process and p a r t i e s a l s o agree t h a t 1110400 the c i r c u i t c o u r t ordered the p a r t i e s to f i l e summary-judgment motions c o n c e r n i n g the p r o c e d u r a l due-process i s s u e s . On October 11, 2010, Gibbons amended her complaint, alleging t h a t t h e Town's p a s s a g e o f t h e W h i t e Rock violated her Gibbons also procedural amendment. and contested s u b s t a n t i v e due-process the Specifically, ordinances Town's Gibbons passage alleged of in rights; the her 2009 amended complaint t h a t " t h e P l a n n i n g Commission's a c t i o n s pursuant to A r t i c l e 11 [ o f t h e Town's z o n i n g c o d e , as amended b y t h e 2009 amendment,] a r e violative of the relevant substantive and p r o c e d u r a l due p r o c e s s s t a n d a r d s and c o n s t i t u t e a c t i o n s b e y o n d the P l a n n i n g Commission's s t a t u t o r i l y On May 24, 2011, the Town and c r e a t e d power." the f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . Rock a l s o f i l e d a motion summary-judgment m o t i o n s , planning commission On t h e same day, f o r a summary j u d g m e n t . the a p p e l l e e s argued, White In their among other t h i n g s , t h a t t h e Town's z o n i n g code c o m p l i e s w i t h A l a b a m a l a w . Specifically, the a p p e l l e e s argued: " A l a b a m a law v e s t s t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n w i t h t h e power t o recommend z o n i n g c h a n g e s , t h e Town C o u n c i l w i t h t h e power t o e n a c t z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e s , and t h e [ZBA] only with the power to grant special e x c e p t i o n s t o e x i s t i n g z o n i n g . Ms. G i b b o n s ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e [ Z B A ] has j u r i s d i c t i o n i n t h i s c a s e i s 11 1110400 i n c o r r e c t f o r t h i s r e a s o n . The g o v e r n m e n t a l power u s e d i n t h i s c a s e was t h e power t o r e z o n e . A l a b a m a l a w a l l o w s t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n t o recommend and r e q u i r e s t h e Town C o u n c i l t o l e g i s l a t i v e l y c r e a t e the S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t f o r the P r o p e r t y . Alabama law does n o t a l l o w a b o a r d o f a d j u s t m e n t t o r e z o n e property." I n her response to the a p p e l l e e s ' Gibbons violated bestows argued that Article the zoning of the Town's z o n i n g statutes i n that A r t i c l e 11 code "improperly t h e power t o r e z o n e p r o p e r t y s o l e l y upon t h e P l a n n i n g Commission, a framework Alabama l a w . " On May summary j u d g m e n t . November The appellees' 3, that i s c l e a r l y 25, 2011, G i b b o n s summary-judgment m o t i o n s On 11 summary-judgment m o t i o n s , circuit court on A u g u s t 2011, the 4, i n contravention f i l e d a motion held a hearing for a on the 2011. circuit summary-judgment m o t i o n s , as court granted follows: "With the consent of the p a r t i e s , t h i s court u n d e r t o o k t o c o n s i d e r c r o s s - m o t i o n s f o r summary judgment s o l e l y a d d r e s s i n g a l l p r o c e d u r a l i s s u e s r a i s e d b y P l a i n t i f f Anne G i b b o n s . H a v i n g c o n s i d e r e d the J o i n t S t i p u l a t i o n of the P a r t i e s , the p a r t i e s ' m o t i o n s f o r summary j u d g m e n t and t h e s u p p l e m e n t a l materials, this court hereby denies P l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t . With respect to D e f e n d a n t s ' m o t i o n s t h e c o u r t f i n d s t h a t 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 and t h a t D e f e n d a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . "Accordingly, the court hereby m o t i o n s f o r summary j u d g m e n t f i l e d b y 12 to grants the t h e Town o f the 1110400 V i n c e n t a n d W h i t e R o c k Q u a r r i e s , L L C , [ ] on a l l grounds a s s e r t e d i n those motions except f o r t h e s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s g r o u n d s s e t f o r t h i n . . . t h e Town's m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t a n d . . . o f W h i t e R o c k ' s m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t . I n so r u l i n g , this court dismisses claims asserted by t h e p l a i n t i f f i n : ( a ) C o u n t s One, Two, T h r e e a n d F i v e o f t h e C o m p l a i n t a n d t h e Amended C o m p l a i n t ; a n d ( b ) o n l y those p r o c e d u r a l c l a i m s i n Count F o u r . 7 "The c o u r t e x p r e s s l y d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e r e i s no j u s t r e a s o n f o r d e l a y and t h e C l e r k i s d i r e c t e d t o e n t e r f i n a l j u d g m e n t p u r s u a n t t o R u l e 5 4 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. " U n a d j u d i c a t e d a t t h i s p o i n t , and r e m a i n i n g f o r t r i a l , a r e t h e s u b s t a n t i v e due p r o c e s s c l a i m s as a l l e g e d i n C o u n t F o u r o f t h e Amended C o m p l a i n t w h i c h a r e s e t f o r t h i n p a r a g r a p h s 39 t h r o u g h 43 a n d 47." Also on November 3, 2011, G i b b o n s filed a motion dismiss her substantive due-process claims without On December 14, 2011, t h e c i r c u i t motion claims. to dismiss, Gibbons thereby court to prejudice. granted Gibbons's a l l of Gibbons's adjudicating appealed. Standard o f Review We review set forth the standard of review a p p l i c a b l e t o our o f a summary j u d g m e n t i n M a r t i n v . C a s h E x p r e s s , I n c . , 60 So. 3d 236, 244 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) , as f o l l o w s : The c i r c u i t c o u r t l a t e r amended i t s November 3, 2011, f i n a l j u d g m e n t t o i n c l u d e t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n , whose o m i s s i o n was t h e r e s u l t o f a c l e r i c a l e r r o r . 7 13 1110400 " ' I n r e v i e w i n g a summary j u d g m e n t , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t l o o k s a t t h e same f a c t o r s t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t c o n s i d e r e d i n r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n [O]n a p p e a l a summary judgment c a r r i e s no presumption of c o r r e c t n e s s . ' H o r n s b y v. S e s s i o n s , 703 So. 2d 932, 938 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . "'In r e v i e w i n g the d i s p o s i t i o n of a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t , we u t i l i z e t h e same s t a n d a r d as t h a t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n d e t e r m i n i n g whether the e v i d e n c e b e f o r e the c o u r t made o u t a 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 and w h e t h e r t h e movant was e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . When t h e movant makes a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t 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 , t h e b u r d e n t h e n s h i f t s t o t h e nonmovant t o present s u b s t a n t i a l evidence c r e a t i n g such an i s s u e . E v i d e n c e i s " s u b s t a n t i a l " i f i t is of "such weight and quality that 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 existence of the fact sought to be proved."' "Ex p a r t e G e n e r a l M o t o r s C o r p . , 769 (Ala. 1999) (citations omitted). So. 2d 903, 906 "'Our review i s f u r t h e r s u b j e c t to the caveat t h a t t h i s C o u r t must r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant and must r e s o l v e a l l reasonable d o u b t s a g a i n s t t h e movant.' Hobson v. A m e r i c a n C a s t I r o n P i p e Co., 690 So. 2d 341, 344 (Ala. 1997)." Discussion F i r s t , G i b b o n s a r g u e s t h a t t h e Town f a i l e d t o c o m p l y w i t h t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t s e t f o r t h i n § 1 1 - 5 2 - 7 7 ( 1 ) , A l a . Code 14 1110400 1975, thereby r e n d e r i n g t h e 2009 amendment v o i d . 52-77 p r o v i d e s , Section 11¬ in pertinent part: "No o r d i n a n c e s h a l l be p a s s e d by any m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n under the a u t h o r i t y of t h i s article u n l e s s and u n t i l t h e m u n i c i p a l g o v e r n i n g body has complied w i t h the procedures s e t f o r t h in s u b d i v i s i o n (1) ... o f t h i s s e c t i o n . "(1) P r i o r t o a d o p t i o n , t h e p r o p o s e d o r d i n a n c e s h a l l be p u b l i s h e d i n f u l l f o r one i n s e r t i o n and an a d d i t i o n a l i n s e r t i o n ^ ^ ^ 1 ^ p , ^ ^ o f a s,y, n^o, p ^s- i s^ o- f 4-1-,^ p r o p o s e d ^on r d -i;n a , ^c^ e , t h e ^^^^^^^^ n ^ one week a f t e r t h e f i r s t i n s e r t i o n , w h i c h s y n o p s i s s h a l l r e f e r t o t h e d a t e and name of the newspaper i n which the p r o p o s e d o r d i n a n c e was f i r s t p u b l i s h e d ; b o t h s u c h i n s e r t i o n s s h a l l be a t l e a s t 15 d a y s i n a d v a n c e o f i t s p a s s a g e and i n a n e w s p a p e r of g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n p u b l i s h e d w i t h i n the municipality, or, i f there i s no such n e w s p a p e r , t h e n by p o s t i n g t h e p r o p o s e d ordinance i n four conspicuous places w i t h i n the m u n i c i p a l i t y , t o g e t h e r w i t h a n o t i c e stating the time and place that the ordinance i s t o be considered by the municipal legislative authorities and s t a t i n g f u r t h e r t h a t a t s u c h t i m e and p l a c e all p e r s o n s who desire shall have an o p p o r t u n i t y of b e i n g heard i n o p p o s i t i o n to or i n f a v o r of such o r d i n a n c e . " Gibbons argues that the Town failed to comply with the r e q u i r e m e n t o f § 1 1 - 5 2 - 7 7 ( 1 ) t h a t n o t i c e o f t h e 2009 amendment be posted at least 15 days in advance of its passage. 8 As mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , Gibbons d i d not c h a l l e n g e below and does n o t c h a l l e n g e on a p p e a l t h e f o r m o f o r t h e manner i n w h i c h n o t i c e o f t h e Town's c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e 2009 amendment 8 15 1110400 Specifically, 2009, n o t i c e the 2009 Gibbons argues of the regular that t h e Town's September 9, meeting of the c o u n c i l a t which amendment was t o be c o n s i d e r e d was p o s t e d only 13 d a y s i n a d v a n c e o f t h e c o u n c i l ' s p a s s a g e o f t h e 2009 amendment on September 22, 2009. The a p p e l l e e s a r g u e t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e September 9, 2009, n o t i c e was p o s t e d o n l y 13 d a y s b e f o r e the council's adoption o f t h e 2009 amendment a t i t s r e g u l a r m e e t i n g on September 22, 2009, notice o f t h e 2009 A u g u s t 11, 2009. the council hearing amendment was i n i t i a l l y The A u g u s t 11, 2009, n o t i c e i n d i c a t e d would t o be h e l d discuss t h e 2009 on September 1, amendment 2009, notice, the 2009 satisfy The a p p e l l e e s w h i c h was p o s t e d 43 d a y s b e f o r e public and t h a t public concerning the the c o u n c i l adopted 22, 2009, was s u f f i c i e n t t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t i n § 11-52-77(1) that notice p r o p o s e d o r d i n a n c e be p o s t e d a t l e a s t 15 d a y s b e f o r e ordinance. We that a r g u e t h a t t h e A u g u s t 11, 2009, amendment on S e p t e m b e r of a z o n i n g on at a comment w o u l d be h e a r d a t t h a t p u b l i c h e a r i n g 2009 amendment. posted of the passage agree. was p o s t e d . We assume t h e r e i s no "newspaper o f g e n e r a l c i r c u l a t i o n " p u b l i s h e d w i t h i n t h e Town a n d t h a t , t h e r e f o r e , p u b l i c a t i o n b y p o s t i n g i s a l l t h a t was r e q u i r e d . 16 1110400 Gibbons's argument i g n o r e s notice t h e f a c t t h a t t h e Town p o s t e d on A u g u s t 11, 2009, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t Town's l e g i s l a t i v e body, would h o l d 2009 amendment on September 1, 2009. requires held t h e Town t o p o s t the c o u n c i l , the a public hearing on t h e N o t h i n g i n § 11-52-77(1) a 15-day n o t i c e c o n c e r n i n g t h e 2009 amendment. of every Instead, § meeting 11-52-77(1) r e q u i r e s t h a t n o t i c e o f t h e 2009 amendment be p o s t e d a t l e a s t 15 d a y s b e f o r e t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e 2009 amendment, w h i c h t h e Town a c c o m p l i s h e d b y p o s t i n g n o t i c e o f t h e 2009 amendment on A u g u s t 11, 2009, 43 d a y s b e f o r e its regular meeting Town c o m p l i e d w i t h i t s a d o p t i o n by t h e c o u n c i l a t on S e p t e m b e r 22, 2009. Therefore, t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e m e n t o f § 11-52-77, a n d we a f f i r m t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t i n s o f a r as i t h e l d the the that Town's a d o p t i o n o f t h e 2009 amendment c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e notice requirements i n the zoning Gibbons ordinance limits also argues annexing violated that statutes. t h e Town's t h e 86 a c r e s the notice into 2009 amendment, " p r o v i d e [ s ] t h e Town's requirements G i b b o n s a r g u e s t h a t t h e Town's z o n i n g passage of 17 corporate 11-52-77. c o d e , as amended b y t h e t h a t when a p r o p e r t y i n t o t h e Town i t i s , b y o r d i n a n c e , § of the i s annexed r e z o n e d t o A - 1 , one o f t h e 1110400 Town's s t a t u t o r i l y the Annexation therefore 37. We comply i f v a l i d , e f f e c t e d a r e z o n i n g and with the i n s e c t i o n 11-52-77." fifteen (15) day Gibbons's b r i e f , notice a t pp. 36¬ disagree. Gibbons's Article Ordinance, must requirement c r e a t e d z o n i n g c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . ... Thus, IV, § argument i s based upon 4, o f t h e Town's z o n i n g a faulty premise. code p r o v i d e s that, " [ u ] n l e s s i n i t i a l l y c l a s s i f i e d , any p r o p e r t y h e r e a f t e r a n n e x e d to t h e town s h a l l (Emphasis added.) into be c l a s s i f i e d A-1 A g r i c u l t u r a l The z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e t h e Town's c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s annexing District." t h e 86 a c r e s s p e c i f i c a l l y provides "that upon a n n e x a t i o n , t h e [86 a c r e s ] w i l l w i t h o u t f u r t h e r a c t i o n be z o n e d a n d become a p a r t o f t h e S p e c i a l D i s t r i c t -- O t h e r U s e s (Industrial) of z o n i n g d i s t r i c t and be s u b j e c t t o a l l p r o v i s i o n s [the rezoning ordinance]." but, pursuant and thus rezoned t o t h e Town's z o n i n g c o d e , was a n n e x e d i n t o t h e Town's c o r p o r a t e Therefore, The 86 a c r e s was n o t limits as a p a r t of the s p e c i a l district. G i b b o n s ' s argument t h a t t h e 86 a c r e s was subject to the notice fails. 18 requirements of § rezoned 11-52-77 1110400 Next, Gibbons argues that "the rezoning f o r t h i n t h e [Town's] 2009 z o n i n g Gibbons's b r i e f , Article a t p. 24. code v i o l a t e A l a b a m a l a w . " Specifically, 11 o f t h e Town's z o n i n g procedures s e t Gibbons argues t h a t code c o n t r a v e n e s t h e z o n i n g statutes i n that A r t i c l e 11 o f t h e Town's z o n i n g the p l a n n i n g commission, w h i c h i s n o t t h e Town's body, the a u t h o r i t y t o rezone Article property. code grants legislative Section 11.1 o f 11 p r o v i d e s : " S e c t i o n 11.1 R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r change. "Whenever t h e p u b l i c n e c e s s i t y , c o n v e n i e n c e , g e n e r a l w e l f a r e , o r good z o n i n g p r a c t i c e w a r r a n t s such a c t i o n , t h e P l a n n i n g Commission may amend, supplement, modify, or r e p e a l the r e g u l a t i o n s or zoning d i s t r i c t boundaries herein e s t a b l i s h e d . " G i b b o n s a r g u e s t h a t t h e Town's z o n i n g code v i o l a t e s t h e z o n i n g s t a t u t e s because, under t h e z o n i n g s t a t u t e s , a m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s l e g i s l a t i v e body h a s t h e s o l e a u t h o r i t y t o r e z o n e p r o p e r t y a n d a planning As commission a result, zoning Gibbons may a c t o n l y a r g u e s , t h e Town has f a i l e d t o e n a c t a code a l l o w i n g i t t o r e z o n e The Town argues i n an a d v i s o r y c a p a c i t y . that, property. regardless of § 11.1, § 5.14.5 complies w i t h the zoning s t a t u t e s by e n a b l i n g t h e c o u n c i l , t h e Town's l e g i s l a t i v e body, t o r e z o n e p r o p e r t y . 19 The Town a r g u e s 1110400 that § 5.14.5, which states in pertinent location [ o f a s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t ] s h a l l be Planning Commission and approved properly authorizes the argues that § with i n response the authority to by part that recommended by the Town 5.14.5 does n o t property. vest We the Council," c o u n c i l to rezone p r o p e r t y . rezone "[t]he the agree Gibbons council with the 2d 120, Town. I n B a l l v. 123 (1961), J o n e s , 272 t h i s Court A l a . 305, 309-10, 132 So. held: "A c i t y o r m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n does n o t have t h e i n h e r e n t power t o e n a c t and enforce zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . W h i t e v. L u q u i r e F u n e r a l Home, 221 A l a . 440, 129 So. 84 [ ( 1 9 3 0 ) ] ; L e a r y v. Adams, 226 A l a . 472, 147 So. 391 [(1933)]; Alabama A l c o h o l i c B e v e r a g e C o n t r o l B o a r d v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 253 Ala. 402, 44 So. 2d 593 [(1950)]. Municipal c o r p o r a t i o n s were g r a n t e d t h e power and a u t h o r i t y t o enact comprehensive zoning ordinances u n d e r Code 1940, T i t . 37, §§ 7 7 2 - 7 7 3 . [ ] T h i s c o u r t i n M a r s h a l l v. C i t y o f M o b i l e , 250 A l a . 646, 35 So. 2d 553 [(1948)], recognized the well-known rule that municipal a u t h o r i t i e s act i n a l e g i s l a t i v e capacity i n the enactment of z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e s . A l s o , the amendment t o a c o m p r e h e n s i v e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e o r a r e z o n i n g o f a c e r t a i n a r e a ... becomes a p a r t o f t h e e x i s t i n g c o m p r e h e n s i v e o r d i n a n c e and, a f o r t i o r i , i s a l e g i s l a t i v e a c t . P h i l l i p s v. C i t y o f Homewood, 255 A l a . 180, 50 So. 2d 267 [(1951)]." 9 A l a b a m a Code 1940, p r e d e c e s s o r to the zoning 9 T i t . 37, § statutes. 20 772 et seq., is the 1110400 Further, in Birmingham, Ferraro 970 Alabama Court So. v. 2d Board 299, of 303 of C i v i l Appeals Zoning Adjustment ( A l a . C i v . App. 2007), of the held: " I n A l a b a m a , l i k e many o t h e r s t a t e s , c i t i e s [ ] and o t h e r m u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n s do n o t have t h e inherent power to enact and enforce zoning r e g u l a t i o n s . Swann v. B o a r d o f Z o n i n g A d j u s t m e n t o f J e f f e r s o n C o u n t y , 459 So. 2d 896, 898 (Ala. Civ. App. 1 9 8 4 ) . M u n i c i p a l c o r p o r a t i o n s i n A l a b a m a do have the power to enact comprehensive zoning ordinances under enabling acts passed by our legislature, b u t any ' z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e s w h i c h a r e enacted under t h i s d e l e g a t e d l e g i s l a t i v e a u t h o r i t y must be e n a c t e d p u r s u a n t t o , and i n s u b s t a n t i a l conformity w i t h , the e n a b l i n g a c t . ' Id. (citing Lynnwood Prop. Owners v. Lands Described in C o m p l a i n t , 359 So. 2d 357 ( A l a . 1 9 7 8 ) ) . " Section 11-52-70, A l a . Code adopt "such make ordinances effective vesting the the 1975, as n e c e s s a r y provisions municipality with of the allows a m u n i c i p a l i t y to to carry into e f f e c t this article," legislative and thereby a u t h o r i t y to zone l a n d w i t h i n i t s c o r p o r a t e b o u n d a r i e s . F u r t h e r , § 11-52¬ 71, A l a . Code 1975, legislative a l l o w s o n l y the "local to " d i v i d e the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n t o d i s t r i c t s a m u n i c i p a l i t y to legislature, valid zoning invoke the a u t h o r i t y granted the m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s l e g i s l a t i v e ordinance effecting 21 " body" In order f o r i t by the body must p a s s a p r o v i s i o n s of the zoning 1110400 s t a t u t e s , t h e r e b y e n a b l i n g t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s l e g i s l a t i v e body to rezone property. Consistent w i t h our precedent, planning Peebles commission can a c t o n l y the parties as an a d v i s o r y body. v. M o o r e s v i l l e Town C o u n c i l , 2007), t h i s agree t h a t a Court h e l d t h a t , pursuant 985 So. 2d 388 In (Ala. to the zoning s t a t u t e s , a p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n i s an a d v i s o r y body a n d c a n n o t be v e s t e d w i t h t h e power t o r e z o n e property: "Under § 11-52-76, A l a . Code 1975, t h e z o n i n g power delegated t o every m u n i c i p a l i t y u l t i m a t e l y rests w i t h t h e l e g i s l a t i v e body o f t h a t m u n i c i p a l i t y , i . e . , t h e c i t y o r town c o u n c i l -- n o t t h e z o n i n g c o m m i s s i o n o r t h e m u n i c i p a l p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n . See § 11-52-76, A l a . Code 1975 ('The l e g i s l a t i v e body o f s u c h m u n i c i p a l i t y s h a l l p r o v i d e f o r t h e manner i n which such [zoning] r e g u l a t i o n s and r e s t r i c t i o n s and the boundaries of such districts shall be d e t e r m i n e d , e s t a b l i s h e d and e n f o r c e d and from time t o t i m e amended, s u p p l e m e n t e d o r c h a n g e d a n d may a d o p t s u c h o r d i n a n c e s as may be n e c e s s a r y t o c a r r y i n t o e f f e c t a n d make e f f e c t i v e t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f this article.'). A municipality i s required to organize n e i t h e r a zoning commission nor a m u n i c i p a l p l a n n i n g commission before e n a c t i n g a comprehensive z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e . Both such commissions a r e o p t i o n a l and, e v e n i f c r e a t e d , a r e s t r i c t l y a d v i s o r y . See, e.g., Rose v. C i t y o f A n d a l u s i a , 249 A l a . 333, 335, 31 So. 2d 66, 66 (1947) ( ' I t i s n o t m a n d a t o r y t h a t a z o n i n g c o m m i s s i o n be a p p o i n t e d , a l t h o u g h s u c h a c o m m i s s i o n may be d e s i g n a t e d . . . . ' ) ; a n d C i t y o f M o b i l e v. K a r a g a n , 476 So. 2d 60, 62-63 ( A l a . 1985) ('[T]he C i t y [ o f M o b i l e ] , w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e and w i t h i n t h e l i m i t s imposed by t h e Code, h a s t h e u l t i m a t e a u t h o r i t y t o r e z o n e , a n d 22 1110400 the Planning Commission, i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a r e z o n i n g amendment, i s an a d v i s o r y body o n l y . The P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n can recommend t o t h e C i t y what i t t h i n k s s h o u l d be done, b u t i t c a n n o t p a s s f i n a l l y on an a p p l i c a t i o n t o r e z o n e . The C i t y i s n o t b o u n d by a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n o f t h e P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n . ' ) . " Peebles, 985 So. 2d a t 397. Further, C o r p . v. C i t y o f V e s t a v i a H i l l s , 282 693, 694 "As (1968), t h i s Court i n F l e e t w o o d Development A l a . 439, 442, 212 So. 2d stated: n o t e d i n 58 A.L.R.2d 1086: "'While i t i s clear that certain f u n c t i o n s i n the e x e c u t i o n of zoning plans can and must be e n t r u s t e d t o a d m i n i s t r a t i v e boards or o f f i c e r s , i t i s e q u a l l y c l e a r t h a t t h e power t o z o n e , as s u c h , i n v o l v e s l e g i s l a t i v e f u n c t i o n s w h i c h c a n n o t be so d e l e g a t e d under c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r i n c i p l e s of s e p a r a t i o n of governmental powers.'" See a l s o W. E. Shipley, Attack Ordinance, or R e g u l a t i o n on V a l i d i t y of Zoning on G r o u n d o f I m p r o p e r D e l e g a t i o n A u t h o r i t y t o B o a r d o r O f f i c e r , 58 A.L.R.2d 1083, frequently delegate to been held that administrative the legislative officials the 1089 body legislative Consistent 5.14.5 e n a b l i n g ("It has may not essence function."). with the of power t o e s t a b l i s h z o n e s o r zone b o u n d a r i e s , s i n c e t h i s power i s o f t h e of the Statute, the zoning c o u n c i l , the 23 s t a t u t e s , the Town e n a c t e d Town's l e g i s l a t i v e body, § to 1110400 rezone property special within district. planning t h e Town's Section commission as municipal 5.14.5 p r o p e r l y an advisory body limits recognizes by Under § 5.14.5, the c o u n c i l , a the limiting i t s f u n c t i o n t o recommending t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e p r o p o s e d district. as after special receiving a r e c o m m e n d a t i o n f r o m t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n , may t h e n rezone the a t - i s s u e p r o p e r t y t o a s p e c i a l d i s t r i c t by a p p r o v i n g t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n ' s r e c o m m e n d a t i o n , w h i c h i s what in this case. Pursuant t o § 5.14.5, t h e p l a n n i n g recommended t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y be r e z o n e d and the council recommendation, approved thereby the rezoning commission as a s p e c i a l planning occurred district commission's the property. The Town c o m p l i e d w i t h t h e z o n i n g s t a t u t e s b y a d o p t i n g § 5.14.5, w h i c h enables t h e c o u n c i l t o r e z o n e p r o p e r t y as a s p e c i a l Based on our h o l d i n g that t h e Town's district. enactment of § 5.14.5 p r o p e r l y a u t h o r i z e d t h e c o u n c i l t o r e z o n e p r o p e r t y as a special district as a n d t h a t t h e Town's r e z o n i n g o f t h e l a n d , w e l l as t h e a d j a c e n t special district determine complies whether was 86 a c r e s proper a n n e x e d b y t h e Town, as a under the remainder 5.14.5, o f t h e Town's with the zoning s t a t u t e s . 24 § we need zoning not code 1110400 Lastly, rezoning Gibbons o f t h e 86 brief, a t p. comply with acres 34. that was Gibbons § 11-52-85, municipality being argues "the void argues ab Town's purported initio." that Gibbons's t h e Town failed A l a . Code 1975, w h i c h a u t h o r i z e s a t o pre-zone property t h a t i s i n the process annexed into to that m u n i c i p a l i t y ' s corporate of limits. S p e c i f i c a l l y , G i b b o n s a r g u e s t h a t t h e Town d i d n o t c o m p l y w i t h § 11-52-85(d), which p r o v i d e s : "(d) N o t h i n g c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n s h a l l a l l o w a m u n i c i p a l i t y t o zone t e r r i t o r y o u t s i d e t h e corporate l i m i t s of the m u n i c i p a l i t y that i s not i n the p r o c e s s o f b e i n g annexed i n t o t h e c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s o f a m u n i c i p a l i t y as p r o v i d e d b y l a w . " W h i t e Rock f i l e d t h e r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n , w h i c h i n c l u d e d a request 2009. agreed t o rezone the adjacent on O c t o b e r 2 1 , On M a r c h 23, 2010, t h e p l a n n i n g c o m m i s s i o n u n a n i m o u s l y t o recommend application. annexation Town's 86 a c r e s , On April petition corporate planning that the c o u n c i l 6, t o annex limits. commission agreed 2010, approve White the adjacent Gibbons to Rock rezoning filed 86 a c r e s argues recommend the the i n t o the that because that the the council a p p r o v e t h e r e z o n i n g a p p l i c a t i o n b e f o r e W h i t e Rock f i l e d t h e annexation petition, the annexation 25 process relating to the 1110400 a d j a c e n t 86 a c r e s h a d n o t y e t begun a n d , t h u s , t h e Town f a i l e d to comply w i t h § We d i s a g r e e . 11-52-85(d). The p r o c e s s o f a n n e x i n g t h e 86 a c r e s into t h e Town's c o r p o r a t e l i m i t s began when W h i t e Rock f i l e d t h e annexation filed petition on A p r i l 6, 2010. i t s rezoning application White before the annexation b e g a n , t h e Town d i d n o t p r e - z o n e t h e W h i t e Rock o r d i n a n c e s Although Rock process t h e 86 a c r e s u n t i l i t p a s s e d on J u l y 15, 2010, w h i c h t h e a n n e x a t i o n p r o c e s s b e g a n on A p r i l 6, 2010. was after T h e r e f o r e , we h o l d t h a t t h e Town c o m p l i e d w i t h § 11-52-85 b y p r e - z o n i n g t h e 86 a c r e s a f t e r the annexation process began. Conclusion Based on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we affirm the c i r c u i t court's judgment. AFFIRMED. M a l o n e , C . J . , a n d W o o d a l l , S t u a r t , B o l i n , Shaw, M a i n , a n d Wise, J J . , concur. Murdock, J . , c o n c u r s i n the r e s u l t . 26
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.
