BEFORE THE BOARD OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT OF THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE,

ALABAMA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

IN RE: WALTER BROSEMER, TERESA BROSEMER, JANET BARTON, MARY E.

HINKSON, RENE P. MORET, HOWARD R. REED, KAREN REED, CURTIS O. TAYLOR,
JR, KAREN H. TAYLOR, JOHN T. TOWRY, AND ANN S. TOWRY,

Applicants and Appellants,

vs.

THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA, ALABAMA, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

and THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR FOR THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA, A
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

Respondents.

APPELLANTS’ BRIEF

CHESNUT LLC BRINKLEY LAW FIRM

R. Patrick Chesnut (CHE022) John A. Brinkley, Jr. (BRI049)
304 North Marion Street 102 W. Clinton Avenue Suite 202
Athens, Alabama 35611 Huntsville, Alabama 35801-4940
Telephone: (256) 777-6003 Telephone: (256) 534-4444
Email: [email protected] Fax: (256) 427-4646
Email: [email protected]
 I. Table of Contents

I. Table of Contents .................................................................................................................... i

II. Statement of Jurisdiction ................................................................................................. iii
III. Standard of Review ........................................................................................................... iv
IV. Statement of the Case ........................................................................................................ 1
V. Statement of the Issues. ......................................................................................................... 1
VI. Statement of the Facts ....................................................................................................... 2
a. The Residence 1-B Unified, Non-Conforming Lots of Record ...................................... 2
b. The Auction and Sale of the Bungalow Home. ................................................................ 2
c. The Demolition of the Conforming Bungalow Home. .................................................... 3
d. The New Addresses ............................................................................................................ 3
e. The April Building Permit ................................................................................................ 4
f. The Construction of the First Structure—the Garage Structure.................................. 4
g. “Grandfathered In” ....................................................................................................... 4
h. The May Building Permit .................................................................................................. 5
i. The Transport and Installation of the House Trailers . ................................................. 5
j. The Planned Third Structure ........................................................................................... 6
VII. Summary of the Argument ............................................................................................... 7
VIII. Argument ........................................................................................................................ 8
a. Nonconforming Lots 13 & 15 Are Not “Grandfathered In Nonconformities; They
Are Merged and Unified into One Conforming Lot. ............................................................. 8
b. The Zoning Ordinance Does not Permit Two Homes on One Lot. ............................... 8
c. The Zoning Ordinance Does Not Permit the Installation of Mobile Homes on the
Unified Lot in Lieu of the Construction of a Single Family Dwelling. ................................. 9
d. The Trailer Assembly Would Still Be a Non-Conforming Structure Even If It Were
To Be A Stick-Built House. ..................................................................................................... 11
e. The Zoning Administrator Usurped the Planning Commission and the City Council:
the De Facto Subdivision. ....................................................................................................... 11
i. Bypassing the Planning Commission. ......................................................................... 12
ii. The Zoning Administrator Bypassed the City Council. ............................................... 13
IX. Procedure and Time ........................................................................................................ 14
a. Procedure .......................................................................................................................... 14

i
 b. Time ................................................................................................................................... 16
X. The City Has Failed to Follow Its Own Rules, Regulations, Procedures, and
Ordinances and Denied the Appellants Due Process. .............................................................. 18
XI. The Zoning Administrator’s Decisions Fail to Comply with the Zoning Ordinance
and with State Law ..................................................................................................................... 18
XII. Abate This Public Nuisance Per Se................................................................................. 19
XIII. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 20
XIV. Request for Relief ......................................................................................................... 21
XV. Certificate of Service........................................................................................................ 23

ii
 II. Statement of Jurisdiction

The City of Huntsville Alabama’s (the “City’s”) Zoning Board of Adjustment (the

“Board”) maintains the power “[t]o hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in

any order, requirement, decision or determination made by the Zoning Administrator”1 in its

enforcement. Under authority granted by state law, and by the City’s Zoning Ordinance (the

“Zoning Ordinance”), Walter Brosemer, Teresa Brosemer, Janet Barton, Mary E. Hinkson, Rene

P. Moret, Howard R. Reed, Karen Reed, Curtis O. Taylor, Jr., Karen H. Taylor, John T. Towry,

and Ann S. Towry (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Neighbors” or the “Appellants”),

as persons “aggrieved by”2 “any decision or determination made by the Zoning Administrator in

the enforcement”3 of the Zoning Ordinance, and as residents and owners of real property near

1005 Hermitage (see Ex. A (application and notice of appeal)) have a “clear, specific right”4 for

the City and its Zoning Administrator to comply with the City’s “imperative duty”5 to follow its

own statutes and Alabama law.

The City Council of the City bestows upon this Board the power to conform the Zoning

Administrator’s decisions and determinations to the mandatory requirements of the Zoning

Ordinance: by wholly reversing such orders, decisions, and determinations; by modifying such

orders, decisions and determinations; and by making its own orders, requirements, decisions, or

determinations “as ought be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the Zoning

Administrator”6. In exercising these powers, the Board “may be provided with the assistance of

such other persons as the Director of Planning may direct. Employees of other city departments

1
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 92.5.1; see also ALA. CODE § 11-52-80 (1975) (authorizing City to establish
Board to hear appeals “by any person aggrieved…by any decision of the administrative officer” enforcing the
Zoning Ordinance.); see also Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 92.1 (where City Council created the Board).
2
Id.
3
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 92.5.1
4
Campbell v. City of Hueytown, 268 So.2d 3 (Ala. 1972)
5
Ex parte Leigeber, 608 So.2d 404 (Ala. Civ. App. 1992)
6
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 92.6

iii
including the Engineering and Inspection departments as well as license inspectors with the

Clerk-Treasurer’s office and members of the Police and Fire departments may also assist in the

enforcement of this ordinance…”7

The City Council also requires this Board to hold a hearing to consider the issuance of an

abatement order:

only after a public hearing by the said Board, notice of which shall be sent by
registered mail to the owners and/or operators of the property on which the use is
conducted in addition to due notice by advertisement in a newspaper of general
circulation; such notification shall be mailed at least seven (7) days prior to the
date of such public hearing.8

III. Standard of Review

The Board must administer the Zoning Ordinance “in accordance with its literal terms,

and shall not have the power to permit any construction or use or any change of use which does

not conform to [the Zoning Ordinance].”9 This matter does not, for example, include a hearing

for a variance where the Board may grant “relief from the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance

which permits a construction in a manner otherwise prohibited”10. In applying the literal terms

of the Zoning Ordinance, this Board must consider these literal terms to be “minimum

requirements, adopted for the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, convenience, order,

prosperity, and general welfare of the City of Huntsville. Wherever the requirements of this

ordinance are at variance with the requirements of any other lawfully adopted rules, regulations,

or ordinances, the most restrictive or that imposing the higher standards shall govern.”11

7
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 91.1
8
Id.
9
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 91.1
10
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 62.2 (definition of variance in Flood Hazard District Regulations)
11
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 1.3 (Interpretation, Purpose, and Conflict) (emphasis added)

iv
 Further, “[a]n abatement order shall be directed by the Board of Adjustment only upon

reasonable evidence of hazard or nuisance and such order shall specify the date by which the

hazard or nuisance shall be abated.”12 The “reasonable evidence” standard of review is the same

as the “substantial evidence” standard.13 According to the United States Supreme Court,

“whatever the meaning of ‘substantial’ in other contexts, the threshold for such evidentiary

sufficiency is not high. Substantial evidence, this Court has said, is ‘more than a mere

scintilla’….. It means—and means only—‘such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’"14

12
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 92.5.5
13
See, e.g., Aetna Casualty and Surety Company v. Commissioner of Insurance, 558 N.E.2d 941 at footnote 14,
(Mass. 1990) (stating the “substantial evidence standard is indistinguishable from the supported by reasonable
evidence standard”).
14
Biestek v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148 (2019) (internal citations omitted)

v
 IV. Statement of the Case

This matter presents a defining moment for the City by presenting this Board with two

seminal questions. First, will this Board allow the administrative subdivision of a lot without

first obtaining approval from the Planning Commission? Second, will this Board allow house

trailers in a residential district where the City Council has prohibited them?

V. Statement of the Issues.

Instead of properly “ascertain[ing] whether or not…proposed…regulated activity [was]

in conformity with [the Zoning] ordinance”15, and, further, instead of administering the Zoning

Ordinance in accordance with its literal terms16, in the matter before this Board, the Zoning

Administrator stepped out on a limb and made several errors. First, he wrongly decided that

nonconforming lots of real property were not “merged” and “unified” while the Zoning

Ordinance clearly orders so.17 Next, he incorrectly determined that these lots, platted before the

City’s adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, were “grandfathered in” nonconformities (Ex. B

(Affidavit of Mary E. Hinkson). Further, the Zoning Administrator erroneously decided that a

lot in a Residence 1-B District could be used for multi-family structures—in direct opposition to

the Zoning Ordinance. Further still, he erred by deciding that real property in a Residence 1-B

lot may be used for the installation of house trailers, manufactured homes, or mobile homes,

while the Zoning Ordinance.

Most significant to the Neighbors, these violations of the Zoning Ordinance continue to

stand unenforced. Your Appellants respectfully appeal to this Board to correct the Zoning

Administrator’s decisions and determinations and petition this Board to abate the nuisance

caused by house trailers that remain in their Residence 1-B District.

15
Huntsville, Ala. Code. App. A. art. 91.2
16
See Huntsville, Ala. Code, App. A. art. 91.1.
17
See Huntsville, Ala. Code. App. A. art. 74.1.

1
 VI. Statement of the Facts

a. The Residence 1-B Unified, Non-Conforming Lots of Record

The City accepted A.W. Newson’s McClung Street Addition to the City of Huntsville

(the “McClung Street Addition”) in 1908 (see Ex. A-4 (the Plat)), and adopted the Zoning

Ordinance in 1963.18 The use of the lots of the McClung Street Addition consists of one and two

story single family dwellings on crawlspaces, as well as accessory structures.19 See Ex. B; see

also Ex. C (Affidavit of Karen H. Taylor). The real property at issue in this appeal, associated

with the street address of 1005 Hermitage Avenue, and situated in Madison County, Alabama, is

more particularly described as follows:

LOTS 13 AND 15, IN BLOCK 4, IN A.W. NEWSON’S McCLUNG STREET

ADDITION TO THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA, A PLAT OF
WHICH IS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 1301/2 IN THE OFFICE
OF THE JUDGE OF PROBATE OF MADISON COUNTY, ALABAMA.

The above described real property shall hereinafter sometimes be referred to as “Lots 13 & 15”

and at other times be referred to as the “Unified Lot”.

Lots 13 & 15 are contiguous with each other. See, e.g., Ex. A-4. Lots 13 & 15 have

been owned by one common owner for decades, and remain so owned today. See, e.g., Ex. D

(Deed from Destefano Estate to GSH of Alabama, LLC, recorded at Book 2022 Page 41050 in

the Office of the Judge of Probate of Madison County, Alabama). When measured together,

Lots 13 & 15 total 100 feet wide. See id.

b. The Auction and Sale of the Bungalow Home.

On June 25, 2022, with the assistance of the Cole Auction & Properties, the Conservator

of the living estate of Virgil Destefano auctioned Mr. Destefano’s personal property, and the

Unified Lot that then included Mr. Destevano’s bungalow style home (the “Bungalow Home”)
18
See, e.g., Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 95.
19
See, e.g., Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 12.2.

2
and an accessory structure. See Ex. E (flyer advertising auction). GSH of Alabama, LLC

(“GSH”) outbid the others present at the auction and purchased Lots 13 & 15 for $675,000.00.

See Ex. D at Real Estate Sales Validation Form; see also Ex. C.

c. The Demolition of the Conforming Bungalow Home.

On October 18, 2022, the City’s Inspection Department issued Harbaugh & Sons

Construction Company a permit to completely demolish the Bungalow Home. See Ex. F

(Demolition Permit Number 603382 displaying only one, unified street address: 1005 Hermitage

Avenue). On or about October 20, 2022, Harbaugh demolished and removed the Bungalow

Home that conformed with the Zoning Ordinance from the Unified Lot. See Ex. A-6; see also,

Ex. A-1 (photo of Bungalow Home prior to demolition); see also Ex. A-7-i (photograph of the

demolition of the Bungalow Home); see also, Ex. B.

After Harbaugh demolished the Bungalow Home, Appellant Mary E. Hinkson walked

from her backyard that adjoins 1005 Hermitage at an alley to speak with Scott Stokes, a member

of GSH who placed the highest bid at the auction (see Ex. C), and asked Mr. Stokes if he was the

owner of the real property or the contractor; Mr. Stokes responded by saying that he was “both”.

See Ex. B. Ms. Hinkson then asked him about his building plan, but Mr. Stokes did not reveal

GSH’s plan to Ms. Hinkson. Id. The next day, Ms. Hinkson telephoned the City’s Zoning

Department and requested a copy of the building plans for the proposed construction at 1005

Hermitage. See id. A man who gave his first name, Bob, but who did not give his last name,

responded by telling Ms. Hinkson that the Zoning Department had no such plans and that she

would need to obtain them from the owner of the property; Bob did not answer any of her other

questions. See id.

d. The New Addresses

3
 At some time between the demolition of the Bungalow Home in October of 2022 and

April of 2023, GSH presented the City’s Zoning Department a site plan for lot 15 of Block 4 of

A.W. Newson’s addition to the City drawn on March 13, 2023. See Ex. G (the “Site Plan”).

Also during this time, the Zoning Administrator requested the City’s Engineering Department to

issue two new addresses for 1005 Hermitage.

e. The April Building Permit

On or before April 4, 2023, the Zoning Administrator approved “NEW

CONSTRUCTION” for the use of the real property at “1005 HERMITAGE AVE SE UNIT B”

as a “SINGLE FAMILY STRUTURE” B” (Ex. H (the “April Permit”)). This reference to

“UNIT B” in the April Permit, establishes the first indication in the Zoning Department’s file of

the subdivision of the Unified Lot at 1005 Hermitage Avenue into “Unit A” and “Unit B”.

f. The Construction of the First Structure—the Garage Structure

On or about April, 22, 2023, a home builder hired by GSH began constructing a structure

(the “Garage Structure”), a two-story building with a two car garage on the lower story and

living quarters in the upper story, near the northernmost lot line of the Unified Lot, along with

what appeared to be an accompanying concrete basement. See Ex. A-6 (Affidavit of Teresa M.

Brosemer); see also Ex. B; see also A-7-ii (photograph of the excavation); see also Ex. A-7-iii

and A-7-iv (photographs of the basement)). After construction began, Ms. Hinkson decided to

visit the City’s Zoning Office, but, by mistake, first visited the City’s Inspection Office on

Fountain Circle. See Ex. B.

g. “Grandfathered In”

At the Inspection Office, Mr. Brian Mandell helpfully and patiently answered Ms.

Hinkson’s questions, informed her that his office did not handle zoning matters but that he

4
understood that GSH intended to put two single family dwellings on 1005 Hermitage Avenue.

See id. At Mr. Mandell’s suggestion, Ms. Hinkson then traveled to the Zoning Office to speak

with someone at that office.

When she arrived, Ms. Hinkson met with Zoning Administrator Travis Cummings, asked

him to show her GSH’s building plan, and further asked how GSH could put two houses on 1005

Hermitage when the Zoning Ordinance required lots to measure sixty feet wide. See id. Mr.

Cummings then showed Ms. Hinkson a copy of the Plat, told her that the real property at 1005

Hermitage was originally two fifty foot wide lots that are “grandfathered in” (id.), and that the

sixty foot zoning ordinance does not apply to the construction at 1005 Hermitage; instead, as he

incorrectly explained, the 60 foot wide rule applies when new subdivisions are built in the

district. See id.; see also Ex. A-4.

h. The May Building Permit

After GSH’s home builder began construction of the Garage Structure and the basement

in April, the Zoning Administrator approved more “NEW CONSTRUCTION” for yet another

“SINGLE FAMILY STRUCTURE” on “1005 HERMITAGE AVE SE UNIT B”. See Ex. I

(Building Permit No. 61630 (the “May Permit”). Curious, this May Permit references both

“DETACHED GARAGE” (Ex. I) for the Job Description, and “SINGLE FAMILY

DWELLING” (id.) for the use of the structure even though GSH started building the Garage

Structure in the prior month. See Ex. A-6. Also curious, the Zoning Administrator had already

previously approved for use of the Unified Lot for a “SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING” (Ex. H)

in April.20

i. The Transport and Installation of the House Trailers .

20
The Zoning Ordinance permits the use lots in Residence 1-B districts for only one single family dwelling. See
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 12.1.

5
 Not a home builder licensed by the Alabama Home Builders’ Licensure Board 21, GSH

manufactures “temporary housing” (Ex. J) consisting of mobile and manufactured homes and

hauls freight. See Ex. J (Barbara Stokes, Barbara Stokes and GSH Help Bring Relief After

Disaster Strikes, Medium, May 17, 2019); see also, Ex. K (USDOT Company Snapshot).

Indeed, the United States Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (“FEMA”) has awarded GSH numerous contracts to provide mobile and

manufactured FEMA housing for the response and recovery from natural disasters. See Ex. L

(Federal Award Recipient Profile from www.USASpending.gov).

Though it applied for and obtained a building permit to construct a “single family

dwelling” (Ex. I), on or about May 10, 2023, without seeking a special exception or variance

from this Board that would have provided the public notice and an opportunity for this Board to

hear from the Neighbors and the public at large22, in less than one day, GSH hauled four house

trailers to 1005 Hermitage Avenue, and lifted and stacked them two-by-two, on top of the

basement dug in the Unified Lot in April. See Ex. A-6; see also Ex. A-7-ix through A-7-xiv

(photographs of the installation of the house trailers); see also Ex. B. This three story structure

then placed and now situated on the Unified Lot shall hereinafter be referred to as the “Trailer

Assembly”.

j. The Planned Third Structure

GSH desires to place a third structure, consisting of even more house trailers on the

Unified Lot, and the Zoning Administrator has already informed GSH that it may do so. See,

e.g., Ex. A-6; see also, Ex. B; see also Ex. C. In fact, and as outlined above, the Zoning

Administrator himself has already obtained a street address, 1005 Hermitage Unit A, for this

21
See, generally, www.alhobprod.glsuite.usblb.alabama.gov .
22
See, e.g., Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 92.5.2 and 92.5.4.

6
third building, and amended the zoning map to display this new street address. See Ex. A-3

(excerpt from Official Zoning Map).

VII. Summary of the Argument

The Zoning Administrator incorrectly decided that Lots 13 & 15 were “grandfathered in”.

(Ex. B). This incorrect determination results in the Zoning Administrator’s usurpation of the

Planning Commission’s power either: (1) to subdivide real property24 ; or (2) to approve multiple

family dwellings situated on one lot.25 Either way, the Zoning Administrator’s decisions and

determinations stand in direct contradiction to the Zoning Ordinance and the City’s Code of

Ordinances and denied the Neighbors and the rest of the public the procedural safeguards of,

among other things, public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission. Further, the

Zoning Ordinance does not permit real property in 1-B districts to be used for the installation of

house trailers or manufactured homes26, yet that is precisely what GSH has installed on the

Unified Lot. See generally, Ex. A-7. The Zoning Ordinance even explicitly prescribes that all

house trailers “shall be located in approved trailer parks”27.

Despite the clear language of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator failed to

enforce and apply the Zoning Ordinance “in accordance with its literal terms”28. He himself

conducted a de facto and unauthorized subdivision of the Unified Lot or, in the alternative,

approved the Unified Lot to be used for Multi-Family Dwellings where the Zoning Ordinance

does not so approve. He also authorized the use of the Unified Lot for the Trailer Assembly in

further derogation of the Zoning Ordinance.

24
See, e.g., Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. B. art. 3.1; see also Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 73.13 (requring that
“plans for proposed multiple family dwellings containing two or more buildings which are located on a parcel of
land not subdivided into the customary …lots…shall be presented to the Planning Commission for review”).
25
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 73.13
26
See id.; see also Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A, art. 91.1; see also Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A, art. 12.2.8.
27
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 73.3
28
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A, art. 91.1

7
 VIII. Argument

The Zoning Administrator maintains: no authority to subdivide lots in the City of

Huntsville29; no authority to amend the Zoning Ordinance or the City’s Official Zoning Map; and

no authority to stray from the literal terms of the Zoning Ordinance to allow uses of real property

in districts where the City Council has not so allowed.30 Yet, in the matter before this Board, this

is precisely what happened, and this Board must correct these errors.

a. Nonconforming Lots 13 & 15 Are Not “Grandfathered In Nonconformities;

They Are Merged and Unified into One Conforming Lot.
The Zoning Ordinance requires lots in a Residence 1-B Districts to measure at least sixty

feet wide.31 See, e.g. Ex. B. Lots 13 & 15, however, measure only fifty feet wide. See, e.g., Ex.

A-4 (the Plat). Because some City lots, such as Lots 13 & 15, were platted before the 1963

Zoning Ordinance, the City Council provided an exception to the sixty-foot-wide requirement:

“[w]here two or more contiguous lots under common ownership are sufficient to create one lot of

dimensions conforming to the requirements for the district in which the lots are located but the

lots are not sufficient for the creation of two or more fully conforming lots, then all of the said

lots shall be deemed merged into one lot.”32 Not “grandfathered in” (Ex. B) nonconformities,

therefore, Lots 13 & 15 stand as one conforming, merged, and Unified Lot measuring 100 feet

wide.33

b. The Zoning Ordinance Does not Permit Two Homes on One Lot.
The Zoning Ordinance only allows one house on each lot. Land in the 1-B District “shall

be used only for the following” nine and only nine “approved uses”: (1) single family

dwellings; (2) agricultural uses, provided no sales are made on the premises; and gardens

29
See generally, Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 91.1.
30
See id.
31
See Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 12.2.2.
32
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 74.1.2
33
See Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 74.1.

8
customary to residential occupancy and buildings incidental thereto, but not including

commercial animal or poultry farms or kennels; (3) municipal, county, state, or federal use;

including publicly owned or operated schools, libraries, museums, and art galleries; (4) churches

and similar places of worship; (5) accessory structures; (6) accessory uses as defined and

regulated by Section 73.1.1; (7) a real estate sign advertising the sale, rental or lease of the

premises on which it is maintained; (8) church bulletin boards; and (9) permitted uses as special

exceptions.34

The City Council defines “[s]ingle family dwelling” as “[a] detached residence occupied

by one family”35, and it further defines a “dwelling” as “[a]ny building or portion therof which

is used for residential purposes”36. A “building”, under the Zoning Ordinance is “[a]ny structure

having a roof supported by columns or by walls”37. By limiting a single family dwelling to the

use of a building by one family, the literal terms of the Zoning Ordinance, therefore, prohibit

more than one dwelling to occupy the Unified Lot.

c. The Zoning Ordinance Does Not Permit the Installation of Mobile Homes on
the Unified Lot in Lieu of the Construction of a Single Family Dwelling.
While real property in General Business C-3 Districts38, Highway Business C-4

Districts39, Commercial Recreation C-5 Districts40, Light Industry Districts41, and Airport

Commercial Districts42 may be used for the installation of trailers, trailers are not permitted uses

of real property in Residence 1-B Districts. The Zoning Ordinance simply does not allow house

trailers or mobile homes or manufactured homes, or whatever other name the Trailer Assembly

34
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 12.1 and art. 10.1 (emphasis added)
35
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 3.1 (emphasis added)
36
Id. (emphasis added)
37
Id.
38
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 23.1.1
39
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 24.1.1
40
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 25.1
41
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 40.1
42
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 64.1

9
may be “colloquially or commercially known”43 on lots in Residence 1-B districts, such as the

McClung Street Addition to the City.44

The City Council makes no distinction among mobile homes, manufactured homes, or

modular homes; under the Zoning Ordinance, they are all house trailers:

Any structure intended for or capable of human habitation, mounted upon wheels
and capable of being driven, propelled, or towed from place to place without
change in structure, or design by whatsoever name it is colloquially or
commercially known; and regardless of whether or not its wheels are removed
and the structure is fixed to a permanent foundation.45

When multiplied by four, and stacked two-by-two, the City Council’s definition of house trailer

precisely describes what GSH installed on the Unified Lot. See Ex. A-6; see also Ex. A-7. The

Trailer Assembly, “by whatsoever name it is colloquially or commercially known”46, is an

assembly of four house trailers according to the Zoning Ordinance.

Again, as quoted above, Article 12.1 of the Zoning Ordinance mandates nine and only

nine approved uses for land and buildings prescribes in Residence 1-B Districts.47 House

trailers, mobile homes, modular homes, or manufactured homes “by whatsoever name [they are]

colloquially or commercially known”48, appear nowhere in this limited list of the only nine

approved uses of real property in a Residence 1-B District.49

That, however, is not all. Not only are trailers, manufactured homes, or mobile homes

not included among this list of nine uses, but the Zoning Ordinance also explicitly requires that

“[a]ll trailers…shall be located in approved trailer parks regardless of wheter or not such trailer

43
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 3.1
44
See, generally, Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 12 (Residence 1-B District Regulations.
45
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 3.1 (definition of House Trailer); compare Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art.
62.2 (definition of Manufactured Home applicable to Flood Hazard District Regulations).
46
Id.
47
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 12.1 and art. 10.1 (emphasis added)
48
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 3.1
49
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 12.1 and art. 10.1

10
is occupied.”50 A trailer park must, among other things, be situtated upon a parcel of land

measuring not less than five acres.51 The Unified Lot at 1005 Hermitage Avenue is not large

enough to be a trailer park, and is not an approved trailer park. See, e.g., Ex. A-4.

d. The Trailer Assembly Would Still Be a Non-Conforming Structure Even If It

Were To Be A Stick-Built House.
For the sake of argument, if one were to ignore that the Trailer Assembly is not house

trailers and that Zoning Ordinance does not permit two single family dwellings on the same lot,

the Trailer Assembly would still stand as a nonconforming Single Family Dwelling or

Accessory Structure under the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance confines dwellings in

the Residence 1-B district of the City to consist of two and one-half stories52, and accessory

structures to two stories.53 A “story” is “[t]hat portion of a building included between the

surface of any floor and the surface of the floor next above it, or if there be no floor above it,

then the space between any floor and the ceiling next above it”.54 A “basement” is “[a] story

partly underground”.55 See Ex. A-7-iii through A-7-iv. The Trailer Assembly, therefore,

consists of three stories: a basement, the lower two trailers, and the upper two trailers. See Ex.

A-6; see also, generally, Ex. A-7.

e. The Zoning Administrator Usurped the Planning Commission and the City
Council: the De Facto Subdivision.

By putting the unification of Lots 13 & 15 asunder, the Zoning Administator awakened a

nonconformity that the Zoning Ordinance knocked out by its own terms. The Zoning

Administrator’s de facto subdivision of the Unified Lot contravenes not only the intent of the

50
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 73.3.1
51
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 24.2.2
52
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 12.2.8
53
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 73.8.1
54
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 3.1.
55
Id. (emphasis added)

11
Zoning Ordinance56 and the State enabling statutes, but the purpose and spirit of zoning itself.

According to the Alabama Supreme Court, "[t]he intention of zoning laws as regards a use of

nonconforming property is to restrict rather than extend it."57

Further, the Zoning Ordinance states that “[i]t is the intent of this ordinance to permit

these non-conformities to continue until they are removed, but not to encourage their survival.

Such uses are declared by this ordinance to be incompatible with permitted uses in the districts

involved. It is further the intent of this ordinance that non-conformities shall not be enlarged

upon, expanded or extended, nor be used as grounds for adding other structures or uses

prohibited elsewhere in the same district. Had the Zoning Administrator not bypassed both the

Planning Commission and the City Council, the errors set forth by the Neighbors would not have

occurred.

i. Bypassing the Planning Commission.

The Zoning Administrator bypassed and usurped the Planning Commission. That is,

either the Zoning Administrator decided that GSH may subdivide the Unified Lot without first

filing an application to subdivide the with the City’s Planning Commission58, or he decided that

GSH’s plan for “multiple-family dwellings” on the Unified Lot need not be “presented to the

planning commission for review”.59 Either way, the Zoning Administrator’s decisions and

determinations stand in direct contradiction to the Zoning Ordinance, the City’s Code of

56
See, e.g., Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 74 (“Intent”).
57
Moore v. Pettus, 71 So.2d 814, 823-24 (Ala. 1954) (emphasis added).
58
See, e.g., Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. B. art. 3.; see also Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 73.13 (requring that
“plans for proposed multiple family dwellings containing two or more buildings which are located on a parcel of
land not subdivided into the customary …lots…shall be presented to the Planning Commission for review”).
59
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 73.13

12
Ordinances, and the due process clauses of the Constitutions of the United States and the State of

Alabama.60

If, instead, the Zoning Administrator had followed the City Code and Alabama State Law

by requiring GSH to appear for a hearing before the Planning Commission either to subdivide

the Unified Lot, or to allow multiple-family dwellings on the Unified Lot, then the Neighbors

and the public at large would have had the opportunity to be heard at a hearing.61 By bypassing

this procedural safeguard, the Zoning Administrator contravened the mandates of the City

Council and infringed upon the Neighbors’ constitutional rights to due process under law.

ii. The Zoning Administrator Bypassed the City Council.

Misunderstanding that Lots 13 & 15 were “grandfathered in” (Ex. C), the Zoning

Administrator requested two addresses from the City Engineer, even though it was not his job to

do so.62 The Zoning Administrator’s acquisition of two street addresses from the City’s

Engineer, 1005 Hermitage Unit A and 1005 Hermitage Unit B, ipso facto, indicates both his

subdivision of the Unified Lot and his approval of the installation of two residences on the

Unified Lot, in violation of the Zoning Ordinance.

Only the City Council may amend the Zoning Ordinance. Section 11-52-70 of the Code

of Alabama provides that each municipal corporation in the State of Alabama may “divide the

territory within its corporate limits”63 and may “provide for the kind, character, and use of

structures”64 within such divided territories. This “zoning power” authorized by state law,

however, does not afford a City administrative department unfettered and unlimited power over

60
See id. See also, e.g., Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. B. art. 3.1; see also U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1; see also
ALA. CONST. art. 1 § 6.
61
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. B. art. 3 (requiring a public hearing prior to Planning Commission’s preliminary plat
approval)
62
See, e.g., Huntsville, Ala. Code, art. V, § 23-166 (requiring the owner of a building to acquire new street addresses
from the City Engineer).
63
ALA. CODE §11-52-70 (1975)
64
Id.

13
the territory within the City’s corporate limits. To abide with the state enabling statutes, any

municipality that desires to zone any territory within its jurisdiction must adopt such a

“comprehensive plan”65 that is “made with the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing a

coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the municipality and its environs”.66 This

comprehensive plan does not include adhering to the impulse of the City’s Zoning Administrator.

The Zoning Administrator maintains no authority to amend the City’s Official Zoning

Map to allow any changes in the district boundaries to allow multiple-family dwellings or

nonconforming lots in a district where they are not permitted, yet that is precisely what he did.67

Only the City Council, “after a public hearing” may use its legislative powers to make such

amendments to the City’s Official Zoning Map68. Again, if the Zoning Administrator had

properly allowed the City Council to handle these matters, the Council would have allowed the

Neighbors and the public at large an opportunity to be heard. By bypassing yet another

procedural safeguard, the Zoning Administrator further infringed upon the Neighbors’

constitutional rights to due process under law.

IX. Procedure and Time

a. Procedure

Section 11-52-80 (b) of the Code of Alabama requires the Board to adopt rules in

accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.69 The City Council indeed requires the Board to “adopt

rules necessary to conduct of [sic] its affairs and in keeping with the provisions of this

65
Id.
66
ALA. CODE § 11-52-9 (1975) (emphasis added)
67
See Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A, art. 90.
68
Id.
69
ALA. CODE § 11-52-80 (b) (1975)

14
ordinance”70, but the Board has adopted no such rules applicable to the Neighbors’ appeal and

petitions for relief in this matter.

For example, Article IV § 1 of the Board’s By-Laws requires that “[a]ll applications for

hearings before the Board must be filed upon forms furnished by the Department for that

purpose.”71 The City’s Zoning Department, however, furnishes only one form for applicants to

use for any hearing before the Board. See, e.g. Ex. A at 5-6 (the Zoning Dept.’s form for an

Appeal). That form reads: “[t]he undersigned hereby appeals the decisions of the Zoning

Administrator of Huntsville, Alabama, wherein a  building permit / sign permit  use and

occupancy permit is denied at [the subject real property]. The application for a  building

permit / sign permit  use and occupancy permit is denied due to the following: …and a 

variance  special exception is requested in this requirement as applied to the above referenced

property.” See id. (emphasis added).

In other words, despite the City Council’s mandate for the Board to adopt rules necessary

to conduct all of the Board’s affairs, and despite the Board’s bylaw that requires all applications

to be filed upon forms furnished by the Department, the Board’s bylaws and the Zoning

Department’s form only contemplate appeals where an applicant has actual notice of a denial of

an applicant’s own request, not, as in the instant case, where an applicant has no actual notice of

the Zoning Administrator’s decisions to approve the request of someone other than the applicant.

Your Appellants, therefore, have applied for and petitioned this Board to abate a public

nuisance per se, by using the only procedure made available to them by the Board and by the

Department. See (Ex. A). The Zoning Ordinance further requires notice of a public hearing for

the Neighbors’ request to issue an abatement order be sent “by registered mail to the owners
70
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 91.1
71
Huntsville, Ala., Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, bylaw art. IV. § 1, Procedure for Filing (Oct. 18, 1988); see also
Huntsville, Ala., Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, Res. 92-3 (Oct. 20, 1992).

15
and/or operators of the property on which the use is conducted in addition to due notice by

advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation; such notification shall be mailed at least

seven (7) days prior to the date of such public hearing”72. The Neighbors do not know whether

the Zoning Department issued such notice or publication as the Zoning Ordinance requires.

b. Time

Section 11-52-80 (c) of the Code of Alabama states that appeals to the Board “shall be

taken within a reasonable time, as provided by the rules of the [B]oard”.73 Likewise, the Zoning

Ordinance authorizes appeals to the Board from any “person aggrieved…by any decision of the

Zoning Administrator”, and also requires that such appeal “shall be taken within a reasonable

time, as provided by the rules of the Board”.74 Just as the Department’s provides a form only for

parties who have actual notice of a Department denial, § 2 of Article IV of the Board’s bylaws

prescribes a time limit only for applicants with actual notice of a Department denial: “[t]he

Board will not hear any application unless the application is filed within 15 days of the date the

applicant was aggrieved by any decision of the”75 Zoning Administrator.

In the matter before this Board, the Neighbors: had no clue that the Zoning Administrator

decided to subdivide the Unified Lot; no notice that the Zoning Administrator allowed GSH to

bypass the Planning Commission; had no notice whatsoever that the Zoning Administrator

decided to approve house trailers in their neighborhood until the trailers showed up and were

installed in less than a day; had no idea that these trailers might violate the Zoning Ordinance;

and received no notice of the date and time when the Zoning Administrator made these

72
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 92.5.5
73
ALA. CODE § 11-52-80 (c) (1975)
74
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 92.3
75
Huntsville, Ala., Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, Res. 92-3 (Oct. 20, 1992), at art. IV, § 2.

16
decisions and determinations that affected their property rights. Additionally, the Neighbors did

not know that the decisions violated the Zoning Ordinance; indeed, it is not their job to know.

More significant, out of the eleven Neighbors, two vigilant Neighbors who live closest to

the Trailer Assembly spoke directly to the Zoning Administrator who outright misrepresented

that nonconforming Lots 13 & 15 were “grandfathered in” (Ex. B), and, further stated “it doesn’t

matter what you read” (Ex. C), the Zoning Ordinance permits house trailers in a 1-B District.

The Zoning Administrator’s misrepresentations of material fact, therefore, estop the City from

asserting that Article IV, § 6 of the Board’s bylaws time-bars the Neighbors’ appeal, and, at the

very least, equitably toll any procedural time-bar. Any such attempt to time-bar the Neighbor’s
76
application is not “reasonable” , as required by both the enabling statute and the Zoning

Ordinance. Further, any such attempt to time bar your Neighbors’ application is not “in keeping

with the provisions of [the Zoning Ordinance]”77 because it fails to acknowledge that persons,

such as the Neighbors, can be aggrieved by decisions or determinations of the Zoning

Administrator without actual notice of these decisions or determinations, and, therefore, no

avenue to assert the rights provided them by the state enabling statute and the City Council.

Even more significant, the statute of limitations for nuisance claims is two years.78 It is

this statute that “establishes the time frame in which a party may seek to enforce his claim”79. A

statute of limitations takes precedence over any conflicting administrative rule of procedure80,

such as Article IV § 6 of the Board’s bylaws. In the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council

76
ALA. CODE § 11-52-80 (b) (1975); Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 92.3
77
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 91.1
78
Ala. Code § 6-2-38 (1975); see also, e.g. Ex parte Brian Nelson Excavating, LLC, 25 So.3d 1143, 1145 (Ala.
2009).
79
Cofer v. Ensor, 473 So.2d 984, 987 (Ala. 1985) (quoting 51 Am.Jur.2d Limitations of Actions §§ 8, 15, 22.)
80
See, e.g., James v. Old Republic Sur., 674 So.2d 615, 617 (holding that Alabama statute of limitations applied
over a Texas rule of procedure because the Texas rule was not “so inextricably bound up in the statute creating the
right that it is deemed a portion of the substantive right itself”)

17
provides that “a hearing to consider issuance of an abatement order shall be held…either upon

petition signed by any person affected by the …nuisance or upon the initiative of the Board.”81

X. The City Has Failed to Follow Its Own Rules, Regulations, Procedures, and
Ordinances and Denied the Appellants Due Process.

The Zoning Administrator failed to comply with the City’s own statutes and the Board’s

own bylaws. “Federal and state constitutional due process guarantees”, however, “require [local

governments] to comply with all applicable statutes and regulations.”82 As stated herein, though

the Zoning Ordinance explicitly requires it, the Board has not adopted rules applicable to appeals

brought by aggrieved persons, such as the Neighbors, who have no actual notice of decisions and

determinations of the Zoning Administrator that affect their property rights. Also, despite the

requirements of the Board’s bylaws, the Zoning Department has failed to promulgate forms

applicable to matters such as the Neighbors’. All of these actions and omissions deprived your

appellant Neighbors of Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution and under Article I, § 6 of the Alabama Constitution.83

XI. The Zoning Administrator’s Decisions Fail to Comply with the Zoning
Ordinance and with State Law

The City’s power to zone derives from state law. This power “is not unlimited and the

ordinance must bear some substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, general

welfare, and general convenience”84, and does not authorize the City’s Zoning Administrator to

subdivide the Unified Lot or to authorize house trailers in a Residential 1-B District without any

81
Huntsville, Ala. Code. App. A. art. 92.5.5
82
Ex Parte Pine Brook Lakes, Inc., 617 So.2d 1014 (Ala. 1992).
83
See, e.g., U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1; see also ALA. CONST. art. I, § 6.
84
Allen v. Axford, 231 So.2d 122, 127 (Ala. 1969) (citing Grayson v. City of Birmingham, 173 So.2d 67 (Ala. 1963)
and Marshall v. City of Mobile, 35 So.2d 553 (Ala. 1948)

18
legislative authority, as he has done in this matter. Under Alabama law, “[i]f a municipality

chooses to regulate land, it must follow its own rules and regulations.”85

XII. Abate This Public Nuisance Per Se.

Not the “general convenience”86 cited by the Axford Court, the Trailer Assembly works

an inconvenient nuisance. The ongoing and “continuous”87 violations of the Zoning Ordinance

addressed by the Neighbors in this Appellants’ Brief are public nuisances88 per se. A “violation

of [the] Code” includes “[d]oing an act that is prohibited…by ordinance or by rule or regulation

authorized by ordinance”89. Under Alabama law, a nuisance “is anything that works hurt,

inconvenience, or damage to another…The inconvenience complained of must not be fanciful or

such as would affect only one of a fastidious taste, but it should be such as would affect an

ordinary reasonable man.”90 These ongoing and continuous violations indeed have worked hurt,

inconvenience, and damage to the Neighbors and to the public. See, e.g., Ex. B; see also Ex. C.

The City Council authorizes this Board to enforce the Zoning Ordinance by abating “the

conduct of any use…which results in ...nuisance to surrounding property”91. The City Council,

therefore, mandates that, upon a showing of “reasonable evidence”92 after a duly noticed public

hearing93, an “abatement order shall be directed by the Board of Adjustment…and such order

shall specify the date by with the hazard or nuisance shall be abated”.94 Therefore, this Board

85
Lee v. Houser, 148 So. 3d 406, 418 (Ala. 2013) (quoting Lynnwood Prop. Owners Ass'n v. Lands Described in
Complaint, 359 So.2d 357, 360 (Ala.1978) (citing Miller v. City of Albuquerque, 89 N.M. 503, 507, 554 P.2d 665,
669 (1976); Smith v. City of Mobile, 374 So.2d 305, 307 (Ala.1979), and holding that the power delegated to a
municipal planning commission to formulate and publish rules and regulations is not a blank check)) .
86
Allen v. Axford, 231 So.2d 122, 127 (Ala. 1969) (citing Grayson v. City of Birmingham, 173 So.2d 67 (Ala. 1963)
and Marshall v. City of Mobile, 35 So.2d 553 (Ala. 1948)
87
Huntsville, Ala. Code, art. 1-7 (g)
88
Id.
89
Huntsville, Ala. Code, art. 1-7 (a) (1)
90
ALA. CODE § 6-5-120 (1975)
91
Id.
92
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A, art. 92.5.5
93
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A, art. 92.5.5
94
Id.

19
must direct an order to GSH to abate the Trailer Assembly as a nuisance under the powers

assigned it in the Zoning Ordinance, or must seek such abatement in a court of equity.

XIII. Conclusion

This is a watershed moment for the City of Huntsville, now the largest city in Alabama.

The Board’s failure to enforce the zoning ordinance in this matter will give tacit approval of the

demolition of existing homes in Residence 1-B districts and elsewhere in the City, to be replaced

by inexpensive house trailers or manufactured homes—in total opposition of the terms of the

Zoning Ordinance with no regard for the City’s established neighborhoods. The practice

outlined in the Appellants’ Brief will allow developers to “overpay and outbid other prospective

buyers” who might otherwise preserve the character of the City’s neighborhoods “for [real]

property on the front end in order to make up the difference by installing inexpensive house-

trailers on the back end.” Ex. C. If not corrected by the Board of Adjustment, this practice has

resulted and will continue to result in the creation of incongruous and inconsistent residential

districts, not only in our neighborhood, but also throughout the City, with no view to conserving

the value of the buildings already standing.

“The general purpose of [the Board of Zoning Adjustment] is to administer the zoning

ordinance[] of the city.”95 The City Council mandates that its Zoning Administrator “shall

administer this [Zoning] ordinance in accordance with its literal terms, and shall not have the

power to permit any construction or use or any change of use which does not conform to this

ordinance”96, but that is precisely what he has done in this matter before the Board. The people

of the City of Huntsville, the City Council, and the State Legislature entrust this Board with the

power to administer the Zoning Ordinance “with reasonable consideration… to the character of

95
City of Gadsden v. Entrekin, 387 So. 2d 829, 831 (Ala. 1980)
96
Huntsville, Ala. Code, app. A. art. 91.1

20
the district and …with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most

appropriate use of land throughout”97 Yet, in this matter before the Board, the Zoning

Department has shifted the enforcement of the literal terms of the Zoning Ordinance onto the

City’s citizens.

Your Appellants understand and appreciate that the City has grown, is growing, and will

continue to grow. Growth is to be encouraged but tempered, reconciled, and harmonized98 with

the character of older established neighborhoods, such as the McClung Street Addition to the

City. This is not a platitude—the City Council and the State of Alabama requires it in the black

letters of the Zoning Ordinance and the state enabling statutes. This Board owes a statutory duty

not only to the existing occupants of established neighborhoods, but also to newcomers to the

City, their children and grandchildren, to preserve the character of the City by allowing the

interests of new development to steamroll the character of the City’s existing neighborhoods.

The Zoning Administrator erred; it is the Board’s obligation and duty wholly to reverse his

decisions, to abate GSH’s continuous violations as a nuisance, to remedy these errors, and to

ensure that they do not happen again.

XIV. Request for Relief

WHEREFORE, the above premises considered, your Applicants and Appellants, Walter

Brosemer, Teresa Brosemer, Janet Barton, Mary E. Hinkson, Rene P. Moret, Howard R. Reed,

Karen Reed, Curtis O. Taylor, Jr., Karen H. Taylor, John T. Towry, and Ann S. Towry

respectfully pray for this Board to use its powers under Article 92.6 of the Zoning Ordinance of

the City of Huntsville, Alabama, to:

1. Reverse the Zoning Administrator’s decision to subdivide the Unified Lot into “1005-
A” and “1005-B” Hermitage Avenue, and order the Zoning Administrator to amend
97
ALA. CODE § 11-52-72 (1975)
98
See, e.g., ALA. CODE § 11-52-9 (1975)

21
 the City’s Official Zoning Map to reflect such reversal, or, in the alternative, amend
the City’s Official Zoning Map itself; and

2. Issue an order restraining the Zoning Administrator from approving a building permit
for the construction of a second dwelling on the on the Unified Lot (Lots 13 & 15 of
Block 4 of A.W. Newson’s McClung Street Addition to the City of Huntsville) during
the pendency of this appeal; and

3. Prohibit the Zoning Administrator from approving a further building permit for the
construction of a second family home on the on the merged and unified Lots 13 & 15
of Block 4 of A.W. Newson’s McClung Street Addition to the City of Huntsville; and

4. Prohibit the approval of any subsequent building permit for the construction of a
second family home on the Unified Lot; and

5. Revoke the Zoning Administrator’s approval of the Building Permits numbered

613968 and 616130; and

6. Issue an order to GSH directing GSH to abate the nuisance per se caused by the
Trailer Assembly to by ordering GSH to remove the Trailer Assembly from the
Unified Lot; and

7. If such order of abatement fails to result in the removal of the Trailer Assembly, file a
pleading in a court of equity to abate the continuing violation of the Zoning
Ordinance caused by the Trailer Assembly on the Unified Lot by requesting such
court of equity to order the removal of the Trailer Assembly from the Unified Lot;
and

8. Make any other such order, requirement, decision, or determination as ought to be

made in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ R. Patrick Chesnut

/s/ John Allen Brinkley, Jr.

22
 XV. Certificate of Service

I certify that, on August 11, 2023, I delivered a copy of the foregoing on the following
listed parties who are not in default for failure to appear or upon the following listed attorneys of
record by mailing it to the following parties or attorneys of record at each party’s and/or each
attorneys’ last known address, or, if no address is known, by leaving it with the clerk of the
court; or by leaving it at the attorney’s or party’s office with a clerk or other person in charge
thereof, or if there was no one in charge, by leaving it in a conspicuous place therein; or, if that
office is closed or the person to be served had no office, by leaving it at the person’s dwelling
house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then residing
therein; or by electronic transmittal in accordance with the electronic-filing system as provided
for by order of rules of the Supreme Court of Alabama:

TREY RILEY, ESQ. KATHLEEN CLAUDIA ANDERSON, ESQ.

ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
City Hall, 6th Floor City Hall, 2nd Floor
Huntsville, Alabama 35801 Huntsville, Alabama 35801
[email protected] [email protected]

PATRICK O’NEIL MILLER, ESQ. TRAVIS CUMMINGS KA

BRODOWSKI, MCCURRY, MILLER & ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
HOEKENSCHNIEDER FOR THE CITY OF HUNTSVILLE
415-A Church Street, Suite 200 City Hall, 2nd Floor
Huntsville, Alabama 35801 Huntsville, Alabama 35801
[email protected] [email protected]

/s/ John A. Brinkley, Jr.

John A. Brinkley, Jr.

23