Opinion ID: 1767764
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: approval of the rezoning application

Text: The trial court recognized, and the appellants do not dispute, that judicial review of zoning ordinances or amendments is limited. Because zoning ordinances are legislative acts, they are presumed valid unless shown to be arbitrary and capricious. Cudd v. City of Homewood, 284 Ala. 268, 270, 224 So.2d 625 (1969); Marshall v. City of Mobile, 250 Ala. 646, 649, 35 So.2d 553 (1948). A zoning ordinance cannot be considered arbitrary and capricious if its adoption raises questions upon which reasonable differences may exist in view of all the circumstances and the wisdom of the ordinance is fairly debatable. Waters v. City of Birmingham, 282 Ala. 104, 108, 209 So.2d 388, 391 (1968). After summarizing this standard of review, the trial court wrote: In the case at bar, the court not only finds as fact that the decision to rezone was fairly debatable; the court finds as fact that the decision was fairly debated. (Emphasis in original.) The court went on to note the following. The appellants spoke and were ably represented at three hearings, the transcripts of which demonstrated much more than mere cursory attention to the complaints voiced. The major concern was the anticipated worsening of a drainage problem in the area, but a special study revealed that the proposed expansion of the nursing home in the manner allowed by the city would not significantly affect the drainage problem. Finally, the trial court noted trial testimony and exhibits showing other businesses in what the appellants contended was a residential area. Although the trial court took testimony ore tenus from eight witnesses, the appellants argue that the ore tenus rule does not apply to our review of the trial court's decision, because the trial court considered records of the hearing before the city commissioners in addition to the evidence of the witnesses before the court. We disagree. The trial court considered the transcripts of the hearing before the commissioners in light of the testimony of the eight witnesses, who included area residents, the former city planning director, the zoning administrator, the city engineer, the vice president of the nursing home, and one of the city commissioners. Their testimony could have been important in evaluating the documentary evidence contained in the documents. Accordingly, the ore tenus presumption of correctness must apply. See Lott v. Keith, 286 Ala. 431, 433, 241 So.2d 104 (1970); and Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, Committee Comments (presumption of correctness attaches when evidence is partially oral). On the merits the appellants do not directly dispute any of the trial court's specific findings on the factors that made the City's decision a fairly debatable one. Instead, the appellants emphasize the commissioners' language at a hearing to the effect that they were not a court, would not hear all this legal stuff, and would allow the rezoning in order to move the case off dead center, knowing that the appellants would take an appeal to court. Viewed in isolation this language might suggest an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion on the part of the commissioners; however, the context makes clear that this legal stuff refers to evidence that the nursing home operated in the past without a license. The commissioners stated that this evidence was irrelevant to their zoning decision and would have to be dealt with by a court. It is not clear from the entire record that the commissioners were rejecting consideration of the factors legally relevant to the merits of the zoning decision. Therefore, we have no reason to doubt the trial court's conclusion that the commissioners' zoning decision was fairly debated. The appellants cite other indications that the city commissioners were hostile and had prejudged the issues, but they do not question the trial court's specific factual findings described above. These findings were sufficient to show that reasonable differences could have existed on the merits of the ordinance. Accordingly we have no occasion to reverse. Let the judgment be affirmed. AFFIRMED. TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.