Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2014

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2014 I Volume 8 I Issue 4 unicipal Immunity— ubdivision- plat applicant sues town, alleging negligence in failing to consider application for nearly six months Town claims municipal immunity from liability Citation: Lee v. Houser, 2013 WL 6703454 (Ala. 2013) ALABAMA (12/20/13)—This case addressed the issue of whether a municipality was negligent in failing to consider a subdivision plat applica- tion, and thus liable for related damages to the developer, such as lost profits. The case also addressed the issue of whether municipal immunity (from negligence) applied to a town and planning commission. The Background/Facts: In 2005, Deidre W. Lee ("Lee") purchased 47 acres in Baldwin County (the "County"). In December 2006, she submitted to the County Planning Commission, an application for preliminary subdivision -plat approval. Lee's proposed plan included a 124-lot subdivision. Just six months before Lee submitted her application, the Town of Magnolia Springs (the "Town") incorporated. In March 2007, before the County Planning Commission had ruled on Lee's application, the Town and the County reached an agreement whereby the Town would have extrater- ritorial planning jurisdiction extending to include Lee's property. Thereaf- ter, Lee delivered her application to the Town. At that time, she was told that the Town had a subdivision moratorium. That moratorium extended until August 2007, when the Town's new planning commission adopted subdivision regulations. The Town's planning commission never approved Lee's subdivision application. Two days before the planning commission's adoption of the subdivision regulations, Lee sued the Town. Among other things, Lee alleged that the Town and its planning commission were negligent and wanton in failing to consider or approve her subdivision -plat application. Finding no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the court granted judgment to the Town and the planning commission as to the wantonness claim. The case was submitted to a jury on the negligence claim. The jury ultimately found the Town and the plan- ning commission were negligent, and awarded Lee $735,000 for damages, including lost profits. The Town and the planning commission (hereinafter, collectively, the "Town") appealed. Among other things, the Town argued that its actions were not negligent. The Town insisted that the moratorium was necessary to adopt rules and polices before considering subdivision -plat applications. In the alternative, the Town also argued that it was entitled to immunity for its 2014 Thomson Reuters 5