Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Prezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council debates prezoning, notice requirements for Hermitage Avenue/US 90 West annexation
Summary
The Mobile City Council discussed a prezoning request for parcels on Hermitage Avenue and US Highway 90 West and whether the annexation and prezoning should be voted together; members flagged statutory publication requirements and the need for legal review after a discovered publication error.
The Mobile City Council considered a prezoning request for property at 4589 Hermitage Avenue and parcels along U.S. Highway 90 West, and debated whether the related annexation ordinance and prezoning ordinance should be acted on together. The developer asked that both items be placed on the same agenda so they could be voted on at the same meeting.
Council members discussed waiving the normal rules to allow simultaneous action but said they would not do so if public hearing objections arose. A council member asked why the city was using prezoning instead of standard zoning; a staff member replied that prezoning is allowed by statute, that it is uncommon locally, and that the developer requested prezoning so they would know the intended zoning for planned commercial uses (the staff presentation cited a Chick-fil-A and another restaurant as proposed uses).
The council entered a broader policy discussion about the role of the Planning Commission and the Unified Development Code (UDC). Several members emphasized that although the UDC gives the council authority to initiate rezoning, longstanding practice has been for zoning matters to go first to the Planning Commission for departmental review and recommendation. One council member said the check-and-balance of the Planning Commission is important and urged that the process be followed.
Staff counsel raised a procedural concern: the state code requires two separate newspaper publications prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance — a full publication of the ordinance and, one week later, a synopsis — and those notices must be at least 15 days before the vote. Staff said both required notices for a prior action had appeared in the newspaper on the same day (Dec. 20), which does not meet the statutory timeline and, based on court precedent, could render an ordinance void. Several members recommended seeking the city attorney’s written opinion and re-noticing if necessary.
No final vote on the prezoning or annexation was recorded in the pre-meeting summary; council members agreed to review legal advice and, where required by statute, re-notice to ensure due process.
