Greater Wash. Park Neigh. Assoc. v. Bd., of Adj. of City of Mont.
Decision Date | 15 May 2009 |
Docket Number | 2080336. |
Citation | 24 So.3d 443 |
Parties | GREATER WASHINGTON PARK NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION v. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OF the CITY OF MONTGOMERY and Friendship Mission Church. |
Court | Alabama Court of Civil Appeals |
J. Doyle Fuller, Montgomery, for appellee Friendship Mission Church.
In 2003, Friendship Mission Church ("the Church") petitioned the Board of Adjustment of the City of Montgomery ("the Board") for a special exception to the zoning ordinance of the City of Montgomery ("the City"). The Church's application requested a special exception to build a "church/homeless shelter" on property ("the property") belonging to the Church in an M-1 (industrial) zoning district. At a meeting on January 16, 2003, the Board granted the special exception. The minutes of that meeting simply indicate that the Church requested a "special exception church/shelter" and that the Board granted that request. Thereafter, the Church constructed a building for use as a church and homeless shelter on the property. The record on appeal suggests that the Church had planned to build a 15,000-square-foot building on the property. However, the Church actually constructed a 5,137-square-foot building on the property.
In 2008, the Church petitioned the Board for approval of a "Revised Master Plan for [an] additional building" on the property, and the Board approved the Church's request. The Church intended to build the additional building for use as a shelter on the property, a use for which the Church was granted a special exception in 2003. A "development plan application" indicated that the Church plans to construct an additional 7,863-square-foot building on the property.
The Greater Washington Park Neighborhood Association ("the Association"), a group of homeowners living near the property, appealed the Board's 2008 decision to the Montgomery Circuit Court, pursuant to § 11-52-81, Ala.Code 1975.1 The Church subsequently intervened in the appeal. The Church filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, asserting various grounds. The trial court held a hearing on the Church's motion, at which counsel for the parties presented oral arguments. Following the hearing, the trial court entered a judgment in favor of the Board and the Church. The judgment stated, in pertinent part:
The Association timely appealed to this court.
On appeal, the Association argues that the trial court erred in concluding that the Board's 2008 decision was superfluous and by not fully addressing the merits of that decision. The Association notes that the issue the Church presented to the Board in 2008 was distinct from the issue the Church presented to the Board in 2003. In 2003, the Board granted a "special exception for a church/homeless shelter" on the property. In 2008, the Board approved a "Revised Master Plan for [an] additional building" on the property. Therefore, the Association contends, because the issues before the Board in 2003 and 2008 were distinct, the trial court erred in concluding that "[the Board, h]aving already approved the project once [in 2003, had] no need to approve it again [in 2008]." Certainly, there are distinctions between the issues presented to the Board in 2003 and the issues presented to the Board in 2008. However, the Association does not address whether, in light of the Board's scope of authority, there is a need for the Board to approve the plans for an additional building on the property or whether the Board even had the authority to address those plans at all. The Association seems to assume that the issue presented by the Church to the Board in 2008 was properly before the Board; of course, the trial court concluded otherwise. A discussion of the powers of the Board illustrates that the Association seems to misunderstand the Board's function.
Swann v. Board of Zoning Adjustment of Jefferson County, 459 So.2d 896, 899 (Ala. Civ.App.1984).
The Board is limited to the authority established in § 11-52-80(d), Ala.Code 1975:
(Emphasis added.)
Regarding special exceptions, our supreme court has stated:
Ex parte Fairhope Bd. of Adjustment & Appeals, 567 So.2d 1353, 1355 (Ala.1990).
The language found in § 11-52-80(d)(2) concerning special exceptions is the same as the language contained in Section 7 of the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act. Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer & Thomas E. Roberts, Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law 200-01 (2003). Id. at 201 (footnote omitted).
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Herfurth v. Gulf Shores Bd. of Zoning Adjustment
...in the appeal to the trial court. Compare Greater Washington Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Board of Adjustment of City of Montgomery, 24 So.3d 443, 444-45 (Ala. Civ. App. 2009) ("The [applicant] Church subsequently intervened in the appeal" from the decision of the board of adjustment.). On De......
-
Washington Mut. Bank, F.A. v. Campbell, 1060616.
... ... Capital City Church of the Nazarene, 443 So.2d 917, 920 ... ...