An Oct. 27 circuit court ruling sends Alabama Baptist State Board of Missions (SBOM) officials back to the drawing board over the Montgomery property they had hoped to sell by now.
Montgomery County Circuit Judge William A. Shashy ruled in favor of the homeowners’ association that has refused to sign off on plans proposed by the SBOM and East Alabama Global Development LLC.
“The ruling that was handed down … is being evaluated by State Board of Missions’ leadership, and the appropriate groups will help guide the process moving forward,” said Bobby DuBois, SBOM associate executive director. “We have sought to be good neighbors through the process and, at the same time, feel a strong obligation to be good stewards of State Board resources. We are praying that a resolution can happen soon.”
The 13.96-acre tract of land sits at the intersection of Taylor Road and Interstate 85 and backs up to Halcyon Forest subdivision. When the SBOM purchased the property in 1986 for potential relocation, it agreed to have development plans approved by the original owners. The Halcyon Forest Architectural Review Board was said to be formed, in part, for that reason, but the original owners are no longer involved. And since that time, messengers to the 2007 Alabama Baptist State Convention voted to sell the property rather than relocate the Baptist Building there.
Messengers also voted to purchase land along the Interstate 65 corridor near Autauga and Elmore counties for a potential relocation site. But the purchase of that land depends on the sale of the Taylor Road property.
East Alabama Global Development wants to purchase the Taylor Road property. Its plans for the land include a four-story hotel, two upscale restaurants, an office building and two small retail centers.
But the review board rejected the hotel and restaurants that sell alcohol.
Benny Nolen, treasurer of the Halcyon Forest Homeowners Association, told Montgomery television station WSFA, “You can imagine backing up to the property and having a four-story hotel looking into your back yard and having a restaurant backing up that would serve liquor and so forth all hours of the night.”
However, in 2009 DuBois reported that a list of costly concessions had been proposed by the development company and the SBOM to deal with the review board’s concerns. But the two sides could never agree, thus the decision to go to court.
Attorneys for the SBOM and development company argue that the original agreement is no longer binding so any development should be subject only to city zoning restrictions.
But Shashy disagreed, stating, “This court finds that the Halcyon Forest Architectural Review Board is the appropriate authority to whom a developer of the Baptist property must seek approval for development plans and architectural design.” (TAB)
Share with others: