## Facts

- D & F, LLC owned a parcel at Dauphin Street and North Florida Street in Mobile, Alabama, and planned to build a CVS pharmacy.
- The parcel was zoned residential (R-1); D & F applied to rezone it to a neighborhood-business classification to allow the pharmacy use.
- To address neighborhood concerns, D & F included voluntary restrictions beyond those required by the requested zoning (e.g., access, landscaping, signage, building placement).
- The Mobile Planning Commission recommended approval by a 6–2 vote.
- The Mobile City Council voted 4–3 in favor of rezoning, but a supermajority was required; the rezoning ordinance therefore failed and the property remained residential.
- D & F sued, alleging the refusal to rezone was arbitrary and capricious and lacked a substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.
- The circuit court ruled for D & F, finding the denial not fairly debatable and effectively setting aside the City’s decision.
- H.H.B., LLC, a neighboring landowner across the street that opposed rezoning, appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether H.H.B. had standing as an “aggrieved party” to appeal the circuit court judgment affecting the zoning of nearby property.
2. Whether the circuit court erred by concluding the City Council’s refusal to rezone was arbitrary and capricious rather than a fairly debatable legislative judgment.

## Decision

- The Alabama Supreme Court held H.H.B. had standing because the proposed development could substantially and adversely affect the use, enjoyment, or value of H.H.B.’s property.
- The Court reversed the circuit court.
- The Court held the City Council’s refusal to rezone was not arbitrary and capricious because the rezoning question was at least fairly debatable.
- The Court reinstated the City Council’s decision leaving the parcel in its existing residential zoning classification.

## Legal Principles

- A neighboring landowner has standing to challenge or appeal a zoning decision only if it is an “aggrieved party,” meaning the decision substantially and adversely affects the use, enjoyment, or value of the landowner’s property.
- Zoning decisions by a local governing body are legislative acts presumed valid; courts may not substitute judicial judgment for municipal policy choices.
- A zoning decision must be upheld if the matter is “fairly debatable,” i.e., if reasonable decision makers could differ on whether the decision serves the public interest.
- A zoning classification and a refusal to rezone must bear a substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare; absent that relationship, the action may be arbitrary and capricious.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a neighboring owner’s standing to appeal as an aggrieved party, but held that the city council’s refusal to rezone for a CVS was supported by rational planning concerns and was fairly debatable, requiring judicial deference and reversal of the circuit court’s contrary ruling.


H.H.B., LLC v. D & F, LLC, 843 So. 2d 116 (Ala. 2002)