Byrd Companies, Inc. v. Jefferson County

12 Citing cases

  1. City of Hoover v. Covenant Bank

    251 So. 3d 50 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017)

    However, before the scheme of fairly debatable is even reached, the zoning authority must show some substantial relationship between its decision and an object of the police powers. Byrd Companies, Inc. v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239 (Ala. 1983). ‘That an issue is "debatable" answers but half of the dichotomy.

  2. City of Alabaster v. Shelby Land Partners, LLC

    148 So. 3d 697 (Ala. 2014)   Cited 1 times

    ’ ”571 So.2d at 1028–29 (quoting Byrd Cos. v. Jefferson Cnty., 445 So.2d 239, 247 (Ala.1983) ). We have further described the “fairly debatable” rule as follows:

  3. BP Oil Co. v. Jefferson County

    571 So. 2d 1026 (Ala. 1990)   Cited 11 times
    Recognizing that the substantial-relationship rule and the fairly debatable rule are two separate considerations

    That being the case, we need not advance to the question of whether it is fairly debatable that the general welfare is promoted by the application of the zoning classification in this case. In Byrd Companies, Inc. v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239 (Ala. 1983), this court adopted the two standards set out in Hall v. Jefferson County, supra, and cited with approval Davis v. Sails, 318 So.2d 214 (Fla.App. 1975). Byrd Companies explained the two rules in the following language:

  4. City of Prattville v. S&M Concrete, LLC

    151 So. 3d 295 (Ala. Civ. App. 2014)

    Our supreme court determined that ‘ “ ‘[i]f the application of a zoning classification to a specific parcel of property is reasonably subject to disagreement, that is, if its application is fairly debatable, then the application of the ordinance by the zoning authority should not be disturbed by the courts.’ ” ' 708 So.2d at 131 (quoting Byrd Cos. v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239, 247 (Ala.1983), quoting in turn Davis v. Sails, 318 So.2d 214, 217 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975)).”

  5. City of Prattville v. S & M Concrete, LLC

    151 So. 3d 295 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    Our supreme court determined that ‘ “ ‘[i]f the application of a zoning classification to a specific parcel of property is reasonably subject to disagreement, that is, if its application is fairly debatable, then the application of the ordinance by the zoning authority should not be disturbed by the courts.’ ” ' 708 So.2d at 131 (quoting Byrd Cos. v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239, 247 (Ala.1983), quoting in turn Davis v. Sails, 318 So.2d 214, 217 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975) ).”

  6. Fort Morgan Ass'n v. Baldwin Cty. Com'n

    890 So. 2d 139 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004)   Cited 3 times

    Our supreme court determined that "`"[i]f the application of a zoning classification to a specific parcel of property is reasonably subject to disagreement, that is, if its application is fairly debatable, then the application of the ordinance by the zoning authority should not be disturbed by the courts."'" 708 So.2d at 131 (quoting Byrd Cos. v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239, 247 (Ala. 1983), quoting in turn Davis v. Sails, 318 So.2d 214, 217 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1975)). The portions of the Baldwin County zoning regulations applicable to the county commission's approval of a developer's PRD application state, in pertinent part:

  7. Pollard v. Unus Properties, LLC

    902 So. 2d 18 (Ala. 2004)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that a city council's zoning decision was not arbitrary and capricious when reasonable persons could disagree as to whether the city council made a wise or correct decision

    In zoning cases, there are two applicable rules: the "substantial relationship rule" and the "fairly debatable rule." This Court explained the applicability of these two rules in BP Oil Co. v. Jefferson County, 571 So.2d 1026, 1028-29 (Ala. 1990) (quoting Byrd Cos. v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239, 247 (Ala. 1983)): "`The substantial relationship rule is a substantive law, and may be simply stated as follows: In order for a zoning ordinance or regulation to be valid, it must have some substantial relationship to the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.

  8. H.H.B. v. D F

    843 So. 2d 116 (Ala. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    Discussing the substantial-relationship rule and the fairly debatable rule as one prong, when a zoning ordinance is being applied to a specific parcel of property

    "The `fairly debatable' rule concerns the application of a zoning classification to a specific parcel of property. Byrd Companies v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239, 247 (Ala. 1983). `"[I]f the application of a zoning classification to a specific parcel of property is reasonably subject to disagreement, that is, if its application is fairly debatable, then the application of the ordinance by the zoning authority should not be disturbed by the courts."

  9. American Petroleum Equip. v. Fancher

    708 So. 2d 129 (Ala. 1997)   Cited 47 times
    In American Petroleum Equipment Construction, Inc. v. Fancher, 708 So.2d 129 (Ala. 1997), this Court discussed the standard of review that both the trial court and this Court must apply in reviewing those decisions.

    The "fairly debatable" rule concerns the application of a zoning classification to a specific parcel of property. Byrd Companies v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239, 247 (Ala. 1983). " '[I]f the application of a zoning classification to a specific parcel of property is reasonably subject to disagreement, that is, if its application is fairly debatable, then the application of the ordinance by the zoning authority should not be disturbed by the courts.

  10. Dyas v. City of Fairhope

    596 So. 2d 930 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    If so, whether the zoning classification application is fairly debatable, i.e., if the classification can be said to be reasonably subject to disagreement, then the application of the ordinance by the zoning authority should not be disturbed by the courts. BP Oil, supra. Also, Byrd Companies, Inc. v. Jefferson County, 445 So.2d 239 (Ala. 1983). Further, whether the zoning authority acted reasonably and fairly, or arbitrarily and capriciously, is a matter for the court to determine.