Opinion ID: 1668813
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The City Council's Denial of the Request to Rezone the Morrow House

Text: The evidence reflects that the following factors were considered by the various City entities in determining whether to grant Unus's request to rezone the Morrow House: the 1990 land-use plan; the existing zoning classification applicable to the Morrow House; the existing conditions surrounding the property; the current and past uses to which the Morrow House had been put; and the unanimous vote by the members of the Highland Park Neighborhood Association (93-0) against the request to rezone the Morrow House. Magee testified that, upon consideration of these factors, he prepared a report recommending that the zoning advisory committee deny the rezoning request [a]s this location is surrounded by low-density residential uses (amidst an intact residential neighborhood), and [the zoning change] would be out of character with the current Long Range Land Use Plan. This recommendation was considered in conjunction with comments and statements made by interested parties at public hearings held on the rezoning request. The city council voted 6-0 against the request to rezone the subject property. We find nothing arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in the city council's denial of the rezoning request. It is without question that Unus's rezoning request  to change the zoning classification of the Morrow House from low-density residential use to one allowing office and institutional use  invokes the police powers granted to the Birmingham City Council, i.e., the power to enact and amend zoning ordinances. The city council investigated the request and conducted public hearings on the matter. In evaluating the request to rezone, the city council was required to balance Unus's property interests against nuanced issues such as (1) how to preserve the residential nature of the Highland Park neighborhood and the residential appearance of the Morrow House itself, (2) how the proposed rezoning would impact the long-range-use plan for the Highland Park neighborhood, (3) the interests of the neighboring property owners, (4) the extent of the neighborhood's opposition to the proposed use of the Morrow House, (5) how the City's parking requirements for business and commercial use would impact the neighborhood if the request to rezone was granted, and (6) what precedent would be set if the request to rezone was granted. [13] These issues properly fall within the categories of health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. The city council resolved these issues by denying Unus's request to rezone the property. Therefore, the denial of Unus's request to rezone was substantially related to the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community. Additionally, the trial court's conclusion that the city council acted arbitrarily and capriciously by denying Unus's request to rezone because other nonresidential uses were located in the same neighborhood was erroneous. The City of Birmingham presented evidence establishing that, in 1990, the zoning classification for the area was changed to R-3 but that the higher density uses that existed at the time of the zoning change were allowed to continue. However, the long-range land-use plan for the area specified that no new commercial or business uses would be allowed. Unus did not establish that, since 1990, the Birmingham City Council has granted a zoning request to allow a higher density use under the existing R-3 zoning classification; to the contrary, the City of Birmingham offered evidence indicating that no new commercial use, business use, or multi-family use has been allowed in the Highland Park area since the land-use plan was adopted in 1990. Thus, there was no evidence to support any inference that the city council denied Unus's request arbitrarily. The denial of Unus's request to rezone the subject property was consistent with the City's 1990 land-use plan. Moreover, applying the fairly debatable rule to this decision, it is clear that reasonable persons could disagree as to whether the city council made a wise or correct decision. Even Chazen acknowledged at trial that whether the Morrow House should be rezoned in the manner requested by Unus had been the subject of passionate debate. Although the trial court obviously found reasons to disagree with the city council's decision, it is not the province of the court to substitute its judgment for that of a legislative body vested with the power to make such decisions. We find language from Episcopal Foundation of Jefferson County v. Williams, supra, especially applicable: While the court is given the power to review the validity vel non of an ordinance or other legislative act, it is not given the power to review the wisdom or unwisdom, or the rightness or wrongness of laws passed by the legislative power delegated to the City Council or the City of Birmingham, or like bodies.... `Every intendment is to be made in favor of the zoning ordinance and the matter was largely in the legislative discretion of the municipal authorities.... Here, the city Commission is acting in the exercise of a legislative function and with a wide degree of discretion.' ... In the instant case, the City Council of the City of Birmingham, although without recommendation of the Zoning Advisory Committee, in our judgment, acted within constitutional bounds and did not take arbitrary, unreasonable or unlawful action. The Council had a superior opportunity to know and consider varied conflicting interests involved, to balance the burdens and the benefits, and to consider the general welfare of the area involved. There was procedural compliance with the requirement for a public hearing. The courts should be slow to set up their own opinions as against those charged with and in position rightfully to perform such duty. The fact that the complainants (appellees) may suffer some financial loss and depreciation in the value of their property is not a test of the constitutionality of the zoning ordinance; nor is it a test to determine if the zoning ordinance is arbitrary, capricious, inequitable and discriminatory.... The question is whether the reclassification of [the property at issue] is sound and fair. If the question is fairly debatable, the court will not substitute its judgment for that of the City Council of Birmingham in the exercise of its legislative power.... The duties of the local authorities in Birmingham, charged with zoning property, are evidently arduous and of a delicate character, requiring sensitive insight and perspicuity as to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare incident to zoning. We cannot say that their judgment is always free from error, but before the courts will interfere, it must be made to appear that such an ordinance passes the bounds of reason and assumes the character of a merely arbitrary fiat. We think that men may reasonably differ as to the advisability of a zoning change or in a change affecting zoning districts. We are unwilling in the instant case to substitute our opinion for that of the City Council upon whom the responsibility of weighing all factors devolved, and who had access to full information and acted accordingly. We have no reason to say that the City Counsel [sic] did not act with enlightened judgment in consideration of the ordinance here under attack. 281 Ala. at 367, 202 So.2d at 729-30. In this case, we see no basis to disturb the decision of the Birmingham City Council, a duly elected body, vested with the proper authority, which, after obtaining full information, weighed the appropriate factors. That legislative body acted in accordance with its powers and discretion. We reverse the judgment of the trial court; we remand this cause to the trial court for the entry of a judgment in favor of the City of Birmingham and the property owners. 1030926  REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. 1031030  REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. NABERS, C.J., and BROWN and HARWOOD, JJ., concur. SEE, J., concurs specially.