HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-04-1974 Regular MeetingC
FAIRHOPE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING - MONDAY,
FEBRUARY 4. 1974
1• Minutes of the previous meeting were approved.
2. Case No. Z-2-74 - Request of Glen Ingersoll to rezone
property on West side of Greeno was withdrawn by Mr.
Ingersoll at this time.
3• Case No. Z-3-74 - Request of Olympia Corte Dyas to rezone
from R-1 and R-2 to B-4, a paroel of land being 10?5' on
Ala. #104, 380' on U. S. #98 and 215' on Business iioute
#98. Commission questioned whether this application was
acceptable at this time as City Council had adopted an
Ordinance on December 10, 1973, stating that any applicant
shall be prohibited from reapplying for rezoning on the
same premises until after the expiration of one year from
date of denial. The last request for rezoning on this
property was prior to adoption of the Ordinance. Mr. Field
moved, seconded by Mr. Box that application be held for
acceptance or hearing until the City Attorney can get a
clarification from the Attorney General. Motion carried.
4. Case No. Z-4-74 - Request of Middle Bay Land Co. for change
In zone from R-1 Single Family to R-3. Residential district,
Located on the East. side of Greeno Road. Applicant to sub-
divide this and adjacent land east of Corporate limits into
single family lots which will comply with requirements of
proposed Rr-3 District. Motion by Mr. Pitman seconded by
Mr. Billie that application be be recommended to the City
Council for approval on basis of Planning Consultants re-
commendations. Motion carried.
59 Commission requested that Chairman request that the County
Court House not record any subdivision within the Fairhope
Planning Commission's jurisdiction unless the Sub -division
has been approved by the Fairhope Planning and Zoning Com-
mission.
6. Motion by Mr. Field seconded by Mr. Pitman that Chairman
Parker be authorized to write letter to County Commissioners
recommending that they adopt sub -division regulations for
the entire County and not only for blood prone areas.
7•
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned.
1
E� r'
IY "
1
r
HE ATTORNEY UEN E#AL
v� M7
• I c�
1
AFAT � �k
WILLIAM J. OAXLXY
ATTORNKY OINKRAL
OIOROI L. 99CK
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
I. RAY ACTON
KEKCUTIVE ASSISTANT
WALTIR G. TURNIP
�NIS• ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
LUCY M. RICHARD$
CON►IDENTIAL ASSISTANT
JACK D. •HOWS
CHIE►INVIITIGATOA
Honorable John V. Duck
City Attorney
City of Fairhope
post Office Box Y
Fairhope, Alabama 36532
Dear Mr. Duck:
ri
STATE OF A[ABAMA • IiV&UN1UUMERY. 1%L wAiViA JuiO4
February 19,,,.,:1974
AN18TANT ATTORN[Ye OKNEML
WILLIAM N. MC OUOM
RANDOLPH O. LURIE
BERNARD P.
SIKEI
GORDON MADIGON
PAUL T. OISN. JR.
DAVID M. CLARK
LESLIE HALL
MIC14ARD P. CALHOUN
HKRSKIIT H. HENRY, III
J. O. L. MARSTON, III
DON CHARL19 DICKS TT
HENRY HARRIS CADDELL
WILLIAM GAINS/ MC KNIONT,
LEONARD O. KENDRICK
GEORGE W. ROVER. JR.
DAVID LEE WEATHERS
MYRON H. THOM►SON
OTIS J. OOODV/IN. JR.
THOMAS W. SORRKLLS
GEORGE M. VAN TASSEL, JR.
CARRY E. TEAGUE
DONALD G. VALKSKA. If
JOHN D. WHKTGTONE
KKNT G. ■RUNSON
WILLIAM T. 1TKPNENG
CRIMINAL GTAT{GTid
TOM GRAGMLL
Reference is made to your request of February 5, 1974, for an opinion
of this office in which you enclose an ordinance of the City of
Fairhope prohibiting a person whose application for rezoning certain
premises has been denied from reapplying for rezoning of the same
premises until after the expiration of one year from the date of
denial. You question the validity of said ordinance.
I am of the opinion that the ordinance here considered in valid.
Title 37, Chapter 16, Code of Alabama 1940, Recompiled 1958, grants
broad zoning powers to municipalities. The Supreme Court of Alabama
in the case of Fleetwood Development Corporation et. al. vs. City of
vestavia Hills, 282 Ala. 439, 212 So. 2d 693, held that Chapter 16,
supra, places legislative powers concerning the zoning of property
within the municipal governing body. While said Chapter 16 does not
specifically provide that a municipality may prohibit repeated
rezoning petitions, i am of the opinion that the power to prohibit,
in a reasonable manner, such petitions 'is implied from the express
powers granted by statute.
Honorable,John V. Duck
City Attorney
Page 2.
The conclusion reached herein is strengthened by the fact that the.
constitutionality of an ordinance is presumed until and unless the
courts declare the same to be unconstitutional. See Sanford Service
Company vs. City of Andalusia, 36 Ala. App. 74, 55 So. 2d 854.
very truly yours,
WILLIAM J. HAXLEY
Attorney General
By-
de
P L T IS�;'AR•'i '/
Assistant Attorney Gen'eIV I /
PTGjr:dh
4
'1