Title: Ryan v. City of Bay Minette
Citation: 667 So. 2d 41
Docket Number: 1940396
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: June 9, 1995

667 So. 2d 41 (1995)
Michael RYAN, et al.
v.
The CITY OF BAY MINETTE and the Trotman Company, Inc.
1940396.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
June 9, 1995.
Rehearing Denied August 4, 1995.
*42 J. Connor Owens, Jr., Bay Minette, James G. Curenton, Jr., Fairhope, for Appellants.
W. Lewis Garrison, Jr. of Jackson, Garrison and Sumrall, P.C., Birmingham, for Trotman Co., Inc.
Robert A. Wills, Bay Minette, for City of Bay Minette.
HOUSTON, Justice.
The plaintiffs, Michael Ryan, Katherine Ryan, A.C. McDonald, Pauline Stuart, and Laverne Garner, appeal from a summary judgment for the defendants, the Trotman Company, Inc. ("Trotman"), and the City of Bay Minette, in this action to enjoin a commercial real estate development alleged to be in violation of a city zoning ordinance. We reverse and remand.
The plaintiffs own residential property on Seventh Street in the City of Bay Minette ("the city"). Trotman has obtained the city's approval to construct a shopping center across the street from the plaintiff's property.[1] There is no dispute that the property to be developed is zoned commercial, and the plaintiffs have not questioned the validity of any zoning ordinance. The plaintiffs argued to the trial court that the development, as proposed, would violate § 9.73 of the city's "Land Use and Development Ordinance," which provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
The plaintiffs contended that the entrances and exits planned for the development on Seventh Street were "primary" in nature, and that the placement of those entrances and exits, as proposed, would direct traffic into their neighborhood.[2] The plaintiffs' complaint contained a request, pursuant to Rule 39, Ala.R.Civ.P., for an advisory jury to assist the trial court in deciding whether the ordinance would be violated by the construction of the shopping center.
The defendants moved for a summary judgment, arguing as follows:
(Emphasis in original.) The plaintiffs filed the affidavits of two expert witnesses in response to the defendants' summary judgment motion. The trial court entered a summary judgment for the defendants, without explanation.
*43 The defendants restate the arguments they made to the trial court in support of their summary judgment motionthat the undisputed evidence established that the development, as proposed, would not violate § 9.73 of the ordinance and, in the alternative, that, even if the evidence was disputed as to whether the entrances and exits planned for Seventh Street were "primary" or "secondary" in nature, the validity of the city's decision to approve the development was "fairly debatable" and, thus, not subject to judicial intervention.
The plaintiffs contend that a factual question was presented as to whether the ordinance would be violated by placing the proposed entrances and exits on Seventh Street. The plaintiffs further contend that the "fairly debatable" standard was not applicable; they argue, instead, that the city's approval of the development was an administrative decision that was subject to judicial intervention to ensure its compliance with § 9.73 of the ordinance. We agree.
The defendants cite several cases for the proposition that "zoning and planning decisions are legislative functions committed to the sound discretion of municipal legislative bodies, not to the courts." In Homewood Citizens Association v. City of Homewood, 548 So. 2d 142, 143-44 (Ala.1989), this Court discussed the broad authority that municipal bodies have in making legislative zoning decisions:
"82 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning § 338 (1976) at 913-14.
The present case, however, does not involve the validity of a zoning ordinance. Under the traditional view of zoning, a city, after hearings and as the result of studies, may, as a matter of legislative policy, designate certain municipal areas for residential use, some for commercial use, and some for variations on those uses that are compatible with the objectives the municipality is seeking to achieve. See City of Tuscaloosa v. Bryan, 505 So. 2d 330, 336 (Ala.1987). The plaintiffs, by seeking injunctive relief, have *44 not called into question the city's legislative authority to create certain "use" zones within its corporate limits. Instead, the issue presented is whether the development, as approved by the city, would violate one of the city's zoning ordinances. When it approved Trotman's proposed development, the city was clearly acting in an administrative, not a legislative, capacity. The validity of its decision was, therefore, not subject to the "fairly debatable" standard. See, e.g., Boulder Corp. v. Vann, 345 So. 2d 272, 275 (Ala.1977), wherein this Court explained:
See, also, City of Tuscaloosa v. Bryan, supra (the city's approval of a planned unit development that did not comply with the conditions and requirements of the ordinance governing such developments was held to deprive the plaintiff residential property owners of procedural due process); Kennon &amp; Associates, Inc. v. Gentry, 492 So. 2d 312 (Ala.1986) (city's rezoning decision held invalid for failure to comply with the notice requirements set out in a comprehensive zoning ordinance); Smith v. City of Mobile, 374 So. 2d 305, 307 (Ala.1979) ("[o]nce a planning commission has properly exercised its authority in drafting ordinances regulating subdivision development, it is bound by those ordinances"); Lynnwood Property Owners Association v. Lands Described in Complaint, 359 So. 2d 357 (Ala.1978) (a municipal legislative body is bound to follow the regulations it has adopted, in the exercise of its delegated legislative power).
The record contains three affidavits from expert witnesses. One of those affidavits (from Darrell Skipper, a registered engineer with Rust Environment and Infrastructure) supports the defendants' position that the entrances and exits planned for Seventh Street are "secondary" in nature and would not direct traffic into the plaintiffs' neighborhood. However, the other two affidavits (one from Connie B. Cooper, the president of a consulting company, who holds a master's degree in urban and regional planning, and one from James H. Lane, who holds bachelor's, master's, and Ph.D. degrees in civil engineering) support the plaintiffs' position that the entrances and exits are "primary" in nature and would route traffic onto Seventh Street. Our examination of the plaintiffs' affidavits indicates that the credentials of the plaintiffs' witnesses go to the weight, not to the admissibility, of the testimony. These affidavits and the site plan included in the record indicate that the plaintiffs have legitimate concerns that the development, as proposed, may direct traffic, including heavy truck traffic (delivery trucks), onto Seventh Street. Because a factual question was presented as to whether the development as proposed would violate § 9.73 of the city's land use and development ordinance, the trial court erred in disposing of the plaintiffs' claim by summary judgment. Rule 56, Ala. R.Civ.P.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and ALMON, and INGRAM, JJ., concur.
MADDOX, J., concurs specially.
MADDOX, Justice (concurring specially).
I agree that the trial judge erred in treating this case as a zoning case instead of a declaratory judgment action questioning the power of the City to issue a building permit that arguably violates one of the City's own ordinances.
The basic legal issue presented is not unlike the issue presented in City of Montgomery v. Robbins, 277 Ala. 29, 166 So. 2d 869 *45 (1964), wherein this Court affirmed a judgment of the Circuit Court of Montgomery County permanently enjoining the City of Montgomery from refusing to issue permits for construction of dwellings in the City of Montgomery pursuant to plans and specifications that the builder contended complied with the City's building code, but which the City's building inspector refused to approve, saying that those plans did not comply with the Code.
In that case, Robbins, a duly licensed building contractor in the City of Montgomery, filed a complaint alleging that the building inspector of the City had illegally, arbitrarily, and without just cause interpreted Ordinance No. 22-63 of the City so as to prohibit construction of residential dwellings in accordance with plans set forth in the complaint. The basic disagreement between the builder and the City related to the traditional method of constructing walls, i.e., the stud wall method with the 2 × 4's used vertically with some material such as sheetrock or gypsum on one or both sides, thereby creating a wall; and the innovation sought to be used by the builder, i.e., a partition of solid ¾ inch plywood used instead of the stud wall on what are known as non-loadbearing walls, the plywood being substituted in place of the more bulky and space-consuming stud walls. The City contended that the plywood wall did not meet the specifications of the building code.
In City of Montgomery v. Robbins, this Court affirmed the trial court's issuance of an injunction, stating, as follows:
277 Ala. at 31, 166 So. 2d  at 871.
[1]  The city stated in its answer to the plaintiffs' complaint that, if requested, it "will issue a building permit to Trotman based upon the plans and specifications presented."
[2]  The plaintiffs also claimed damages from the city based on allegations of inverse condemnation. However, the issue whether the summary judgment was proper as to that claim was not argued on appeal and is, therefore, not properly before us. Rule 28(a)(5), Ala.R.App.P.; Kirksey v. Roberts, 613 So. 2d 352 (Ala.1993); Cook v. Latimer, 279 Ala. 294, 184 So. 2d 807 (1966).