Bailey v. Shelby County

Citation: 507 So. 2d 438Docket: 84-1353

Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; March 5, 1987; Alabama; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The case R. Howard Bailey, et al. v. Shelby County, Alabama, et al. addresses the constitutionality of local legislative acts establishing the Shelby County Planning Commission. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of these acts. Appellants claim that the legislature improperly ratified actions under a previously deemed unconstitutional act and violated the separation of powers principle. This follows a prior ruling in Adam v. Shelby County Commission, where Act 816 was invalidated for discrepancies with its published version. The 1982 Acts No. 82-693 and 82-771, which closely mirror Act 816, include a section that seeks to ratify all actions taken under Act 816. 

Bailey and 71 other residents filed a complaint seeking to declare the 1982 acts unconstitutional and requesting injunctive relief against Shelby County and its Planning Commission. Concurrently, Shelby County sued James W. Parker and Carole Dean Parker regarding the adoption of a zoning ordinance under Act 82-693, claiming the Parkers expanded their non-conforming use of property after the zoning law's enactment. The Parkers defended by challenging the constitutionality of the 1982 acts, aligning with Bailey's complaint. Both cases were consolidated, and the trial court ruled the acts constitutional, presuming their validity, which led to a joint appeal by both parties. Appellants argue against the enactment of curative acts that could undermine vested rights or validate unconstitutional statutes.

The Bailey complaint asserts that the Shelby County Planning Commission continues to use the Shelby County Alabama Zoning Ordinance from June 1974. However, the county's records indicate that the Zoning Ordinance was actually adopted on August 16, 1982, without contradiction. The argument regarding the adoption of a zoning map from the unconstitutional 1965 act is deemed insignificant, as no appellants have claimed a vested right impacted by Section 16 of the 1982 acts, which purportedly ratifies prior actions. The Bailey plaintiffs fail to specify any injury, and the Parkers' nonconforming use, established in September 1982, shows no adverse effect from the planning commission’s actions under the 1965 act. The appellants lack standing to challenge Section 16, as their argument hinges on the premise that the legislature could not ratify actions taken under the 1965 act, which they argue was void ab initio. While some unconstitutional statutes may be considered void from the outset, reliance on the 1965 law's regulations may provide protection. The record indicates the 1982 planning commission's adoption of an already existing zoning map does not constitute harm to the appellants. The appellants' constitutional challenges focus on the separation of powers outlined in the Alabama Constitution of 1901, particularly Sections 42 and 44, which they argue prohibit the delegation of zoning authority to the planning commission. They contend that enacting zoning ordinances is a legislative function, supported by precedent cases.

Counties and municipal corporations lack inherent authority to enact zoning ordinances, as established in cases such as Roberson v. City of Montgomery and Ball v. Jones. However, the legislature can delegate this zoning power to them as part of the police power. A concern arises when zoning power is assigned to a non-elected body, exemplified by the Shelby County Planning Commission, which is composed of appointees from various organizations rather than elected officials. Despite this delegation, members must take an oath as public officials.

In 1984, the legislature amended the zoning delegation (Act No. 84-454), stating that the county commission would appoint the planning commission, with its zoning actions requiring county commission approval. This case remains relevant due to ongoing injunction actions against the Parkers. Other notable delegations of zoning authority have been made to municipal corporations and Jefferson County, specifically to elected governing bodies.

The document references City of Mobile v. Karagan, highlighting that the Mobile City Planning Commission acted only in an advisory capacity, retaining final zoning authority for the city. While delegating zoning power to a non-elected body has not been established, it is not inherently unconstitutional. Administrative agencies often receive legislative rule-making authority through appointed officials, exemplified by the Commissioner of the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Past cases, including Williams v. Kelley and Franklin v. State ex rel. Milk Control Board, have upheld the delegation of such authority, asserting that while the legislature cannot delegate law-making power, it can delegate authority to determine factual circumstances essential for legislative action.

Section 41-22-3 of the Alabama Administrative Procedure Act (APA) defines 'agency' to include various state administrative entities, excluding local governmental units like counties and municipalities. The planning commission of Shelby County is considered an agency, although it is not subject to the APA. The legislature has the authority to delegate certain legislative powers to county agencies, which is consistent with its broader legislative powers. The core issue in delegation of powers is whether adequate standards and safeguards are established. The nondelegation doctrine aims to prevent uncontrolled discretionary power, but traditional applications of this doctrine have proven ineffective. A revised nondelegation doctrine should focus on protecting against arbitrary authority rather than solely on statutory standards.

The judicial inquiry should prioritize the actual protections provided by administrators over the exact wording of statutes. Although deference to agencies is not necessary to uphold certain acts, these acts do include standards and safeguards, such as provisions for public notice, hearings, exception procedures, and appeals to the circuit court. The Court of Civil Appeals supported the requirement for planning commission members to be freeholders, linking it to a legitimate state interest, although this aspect was deemed potentially dicta. The plaintiffs in the Bailey complaint are identified as property owners, and thus the appellants lack standing to contest the freeholder requirement. Additionally, the appellants' separation of powers argument is dismissed, as it is typical for agencies to create rules and handle initial reviews of complaints. The trial court's judgment is affirmed.

A Planning Commission for Shelby County, Alabama is established, known as the Shelby County Planning Commission, with duties and responsibilities defined within the document. The "county governing body" refers to the Shelby County Commission or its successors. The Commission consists of seven members, all over 25 years old, qualified electors, residents, and free-holders of Shelby County, residing outside municipal limits. Appointments include two members from the Shelby County Commission, two from the Shelby County Board of Education, two from the Shelby County Bar Association, and one from the Circuit Court Judge. No more than two members may come from the same county beat. Each member serves a six-year term, with initial terms staggered by drawing lots. Members must take an oath and serve without compensation, although reasonable expenses may be reimbursed. 

The Commission's jurisdiction covers areas outside municipal boundaries, excluding regions where municipalities exercise planning and zoning powers. The Commission will elect a chairman annually, hold regular monthly meetings, adopt by-laws, and maintain public records. A quorum for business transactions requires five members. The Commission can appoint staff and engage consultants as needed, accept funding from various sources, and must operate within budgetary appropriations set by the county governing body.

The commission is tasked with creating and maintaining a master plan and zoning regulations for Shelby County's physical development, without restricting land use for mining or mineral extraction. The plan must include maps and descriptive materials that outline development recommendations and zoning controls over building height, area, bulk, location, and land use. The commission can adopt and publish portions of the plan as it progresses, with the ability to amend or extend it as necessary. Eminent domain rights of railroads and utilities are preserved, allowing construction and maintenance of necessary public service structures.

In preparing the master plan and zoning regulations, the commission must conduct thorough surveys of current county conditions, considering agricultural uses, geographical features, population growth, and public needs such as traffic and recreation. The aim is to ensure coordinated and harmonious development that promotes health, safety, and general welfare, while efficiently utilizing public funds.

The master plan and zoning regulations will not take effect in any beat of Shelby County until a special election indicates majority support from qualified electors in that beat. This election must occur within 30 to 45 days of a petition signed by at least 25 real estate-owning electors, with public notice given three weeks in advance. The election costs will be covered by Shelby County's General Fund.

The ballot must allow voters to express their preference for the Commission's authority, master plan, and zoning regulations with 'Yes' or 'No' options. Only qualified electors outside municipal boundaries or in areas excluded from the Commission’s jurisdiction are eligible to vote or petition for an election. A statement regarding this eligibility must be included on the ballot, and any invalid petitions will be rendered null.

The Commission is mandated to adopt subdivision regulations, requiring approval of subdivision plats before they can be filed in the Probate Office. A penalty of up to $100 per lot may be imposed on individuals who subdivide property without proper plat recording. 

For zoning purposes, the Commission has the authority to establish districts within its jurisdiction to promote the county's health, safety, and general welfare. The Commission will set standards for land use and building types, excluding buildings costing less than $500 and home modifications. The zoning regulations aim to reduce congestion, ensure safety, provide adequate public services, and promote desirable living conditions while conserving property values. The Commission may implement a comprehensive zoning plan for the entire jurisdiction or develop separate plans for specific areas based on their suitability for urban or suburban development.

Zoning regulations become effective in a designated area after publication in a local newspaper for three weeks, including a notice of the time and place for public consideration. The Commission cannot retroactively change any land use that existed at the time the regulations were enacted. If any construction or land use violates these regulations, the county attorney or Commission officer may take legal action to prevent such violations, which includes stopping illegal occupancy or use of the property.

The Commission has the authority to grant special exceptions to zoning regulations under specific conditions that align with its objectives. Individuals wishing to appeal a zoning regulation must submit a written petition, leading to a hearing where the Commission can address alleged errors, decide on requests for special exceptions, and authorize variances in specific circumstances that do not conflict with public interest and prevent unnecessary hardship.

Aggrieved parties have 15 days to appeal any final decision made by the Commission regarding zoning regulations. Appeals, based on claims of unreasonableness, discrimination, or unconstitutionality, must be filed with the circuit court or appropriate jurisdiction. The Commission is required to provide a certified transcript of the proceedings to the court for review.

Section 16 outlines the establishment and authority of the Shelby County Planning Commission under Act No. 816 (H.952), which includes provisions for its organization, membership, powers, personnel, jurisdiction, and financial status. The Commission is empowered to create subdivision regulations, a master plan, and zoning regulations for Shelby County, with a mandate for an election in each beat before such authority is applied. The Act prohibits retroactive zoning regulations and outlines enforcement remedies along with exceptions and appeal processes related to the Commission's decisions. Additionally, it ratifies and validates all prior actions taken under the authority of Act No. 816 by the Commission, county officials, and electors.

Section 17 states that the provisions of the Act are severable, meaning that if any part is deemed invalid or unconstitutional, the remaining parts will still stand. Section 18 establishes that the Act will take effect upon the Governor’s signature. Notes clarify that Section 106 requires the publication of local acts in a widely circulated newspaper for four weeks before legislative introduction, and there is no question regarding compliance with this requirement. Furthermore, it acknowledges that there is no dispute over whether the two acts in question should be considered separate or merged, leaving that matter unresolved.