HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-16-2025 Board of Adjustments Agenda PacketMay 19, 2025
Board of Adjustments Minutes
1
The Board of Adjustments met Monday, May 19, 2025, at 5:00 PM at the City Municipal Complex,
161 N. Section Street in the Council Chambers.
Present: Anil Vira, Chair; Cathy Slagle, Vice-Chair; Ryan Baker; Donna Cook; Bryan Flowers;
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director; Mike Jeffries, Development Services Manager
and Cindy Beaudreau, Planning Clerk.
Absent: Frank Lamia
Chairman Vira called the meeting to order at 5:01 PM.
Approval of Minutes
Ryan Baker made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 21, 2025, meeting.
Bryan Flowers seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers
Nay: None.
BOA 25.07 Public hearing to consider the request of the Applicant, Jade Consulting, LLC, on
behalf of the Owner, HJ Properties LLC, for a Special Exception to operate a bar and
entertainment venue on property zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. The property is
approximately .38 acres and is located at 363 Commercial Park Drive. PPIN #: 10731
Hunter Simmons, Planning and Zoning Director, presented the request of the Applicant, Jade
Consulting, LLC, on behalf of the Owner, HJ Properties LLC, for a Special Exception to operate
a bar and entertainment venue on property zoned M-1, Light Industrial District. Mr. Simmons
shared the aerial and zoning maps. The bar and entertainment use is an accessory use to the
proposed allowed indoor recreation facility.
Staff recommends approval of BOA 25.07 with the following conditions:
1. Signage shall conform to the Sign Ordinance.
2. Any additional parking spaces beyond 19 spaces shall be permeable.
3. Correct seat count to 51 not 47 in all plans to be submitted.
4. Outdoor patios shall have physical barriers defining the assembly space.
Paul Marcinko, Jade Consulting, thanked staff for their help in narrowing the focus.
Chairman Vira opened the public hearing at 5:13pm, with no one present to speak, the public
hearing was closed at 5:13pm.
Cathy Slagle asked what the hours would be. Avery Reed, Owner, is proposing 7am-10pm and
expects to have approximately 25 people at all times and 150 members.
May 19, 2025
Board of Adjustments Minutes
2
Donna Cook asked how many employees they would have along with what types of events they
expect to host. Mr. Reed replied that there will be four employees, and they expect to host corporate
functions.
Bryan Flowers asked if there would be a traditional bar. Mr. Reed stated that it would be a
traditional bar serving beer and wine.
Cathy Slagle asked about the cost of membership. Mr. Reed stated that the cost of membership has
not been established but that there will be an initiation fee along with a membership fee.
Ryan Baker asked if this project would need to go through the Industrial Board. Hunter Simmons
stated no.
Motion:
Cathy Slagle made a motion to approve BOA 25.07, with staff recommendations.
Ryan Baker seconded the motion and the motion carried with the following vote.
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers
Nay: None.
Old/New Business
None
Adjournment
Cathy Slagle made a motion to adjourn.
The motion carried unanimously with the following vote:
Aye: Anil Vira, Cathy Slagle, Ryan Baker, Donna Cook and Bryan Flowers
Nay: None.
Adjourned at 5:17p.m.
____________________________ ________________________
Anil Vira, Chairman Cindy Beaudreau, Secretary
City of Fairhope
Board of Adjustments
June 16, 2025
BOA 25.05 - 657 N Mobile Street
Proiect Name:
657 N Mobile Street
Site Data:
0.48 acres
Proiect Tr_e_e:
Various setback variances
Jurisdiction:
Fairhope Planning Jurisdiction
Zoning_ District:
R-2 Medium Density Single-Family
Residential District
PPIN Number:
62470
General Location:
West of the intersection of Pensacola
Avenue and North Mobile Street
Surver_or ot Record:
N/A
Eng_ineer o[Record:
N/A
Owner L Develoe_er:
Robert, Melanie Roberts
School District:
Fairhope Elementary School
Fairhope Middle and High Schools
Recommendation:
Denial
Prei:!ared bl£:
Hunter Simmons
--Road LJ Corporate Limit D Parcel
-B-3b Tourist Resort Commercial D R-2 Medium Density Single-Family
WWE
_____________ __,
Page 4 of 6
APPLICATION FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS
Application Type: Administrative Appeal Special Exception Variance
Property Owner / Leaseholder Information
Name: Robert A. Roberts and Melanie W. Roberts Phone Number:
225-405-1390 Street Address: 657 N. Mobile Street
City: Fairhope State: AL Zip: 36532
Applicant / Agent Information
If different from above.
Notarized letter from property owner is required if an agent is used for representation.
Name: ___________________________ Phone Number: _________________________
Street Address: _____________________________________________________________
City: _________________________ State: ________ Zip: _____________________
Site Plan with Existing Conditions Attached: YES NO
Site Plan with Proposed Conditions Attached: YES NO
Variance Request Information Complete: YES NO
Names and Address of all Real Property Owners
within 300 Feet of Above Described Property Attached: YES NO
Applications for Administrative Appeal or Special Exception:
Please attach as a separate sheet(s) information regarding the administrative decision made or information
regarding the use seeking approval. Please feel free to be as specific or as general as you wish in your description.
This information will be provided to the Board before the actual meeting date. It is to your benefit to explain as
much as possible your position or proposal.
I certify that I am the property owner/leaseholder of the above described property and hereby
submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax
Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this application.
___________________________________________
Signature
___________________________________________
Robert A. Roberts__________________________
Property Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name
March 3, 2025_____________________________
Date Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable)
X□ □ □
Page 5 of 6
VARIANCE REQUEST INFORMATION
What characteristics of the property prevent / preclude its development?:
Too Narrow Elevation Soil
Too Small Slope Subsurface
Too Shallow Shape Other (specify)
Describe the indicated conditions: The lot is zoned as R2 but does not meet the required
minimum width and is non-conforming. It's also classified as "Waterfront Improved" by the
Baldwin County Tax Assessor.
How do the above indicated characteristics preclude reasonable use of your land? The house is
currently under construction and is approximately 80% complete. It was determined that the
previous contractor built the house within the West setback and the South setback. The house
is approximately in the same spot as the previous house and is in-line with the other houses
to the North and South; therefore, it is not impacting the other houses (see attached pictures).
What type of variance are you requesting (be as specific as possible)? We're humbly requesting
to leave the house where it is, which means; we're requesting a variance of 20.7 feet to the
West and 3.4 feet to the South.
Hardship (taken from Code of Alabama 1975 Section 11-52-80):
"To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the (zoning) ordinance as will not
be contrary to the public interest, where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provision of
the (zoning) ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship and so that the spirit of the (zoning) ordinance
shall be observed and substantial justice done."
BOA Fee Calculation:
Residential Commercial
Filing Fee: $100 $500
Publication: $20 $20
TOTAL: $
I certify that I am the property owner/leaseholder of the above described property and hereby
submit this application to the City for review. *If property is owned by Fairhope Single Tax
Corp. an authorized Single Tax representative shall sign this application.
___________________________________________
Signature
___________________________________________
Robert A. Roberts__________________________
Property Owner/Leaseholder Printed Name
March 3, 2025_____________________________
Date Fairhope Single Tax Corp. (If Applicable)
X
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
□
CITY OF FAIRHOPE
P.O. Box 429
Fairhope, AL 36533
(251) 928-8003
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS & APPEALS
APPLICATION
Page 2 of 6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS (BOA) APPLICATION
Authority: The City of Fairhope is authorized under the Code of Alabama, 1975 to
create and establish a Board of Adjustment whose duties are quasi-judicial.
Public Notice: All BOA applications are required by State Law to give notice in both
the newspaper and to all real property owners with 300 feet of the proposed change.
The cost of this notice is paid by the applicant. All notice charges are paid at the
time of application submission.
The BOA must conduct public hearings in conjunction with all applications. At the
time of the BOA meeting all interested persons will be given the opportunity to
speak either pro or con for the proposal.
BOA Functions: The BOA performs several functions: 1) hear and decides appeals
from a decision made by an administrative official of the City of Fairhope; 2) hear
and decide on granting special exceptions as permitted in the Zoning Ordinance,
and; 3) authorize on appeal in specific cases variances to the regulations established
in the Zoning Ordinance.
Decision and Voting: The BOA is a 5 member Board. The Board will conduct a
public hearing and consider the request of the applicant. The Board has three (3)
options: 1) approve the request; 2) deny the request; table the request.
Approval of the request requires 4 of the 5 members of the BOA to vote in favor. A
simple majority does not pass.
BOA Application Submission: The BOA application must be complete. An
application is not considered complete unless all required documents are provided
at the time of submission. An incomplete application may not be accepted by staff.
Deadlines: The City of Fairhope wishes to expedite the BOA process in the best and
most effective manner possible. To that end, it is important that deadline times and
dates are adhered to by the applicant (refer to the attached schedule for dates and
times)
Page 3 of 6
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS (BOA) FLOW CHART
Consultation with Staff
BOA Application
Submittal
- Completed Application
- Site Plan with Existing
Conditions
- Site Plan with Proposed
Layout
- Map of adjacent
properties with zoning
- Names and addresses of
property owners within
300 ft.
Staff Review of
Submission
BOA Consideration of
Application
Disapproval Approval
Appeal must be filed at
Circuit Court and notice
given to BOA of appeal
within 15 days of Hearing
Page 6 of 6
CERTIFICATION OF PROPERTY OWNER NOTIFICATION LIST
As Required by the City of Fairhope
Hearings on Board of Adjustments & Appeals applications require notification
to all property owners within 300 feet of the property under consideration for
the change. This list must be the most current property owners’ records
available from the Baldwin County Revenue Office.
By signing below, I Robert A. Roberts, (applicant) do hereby certify that the
property owner list attached to this application was obtained from the Baldwin
County Revenue Office and is a complete list of all real property owners/
lessees within 300 feet of the parcel submitted for consideration by the Board
of Adjustments & Appeals.
_______________________________________________________________
Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent Date of Application
March 5, 20205
1 BOA 25.05 – 657 N Mobile St
Summary of Request:
Applicants, Robert and Melanie Roberts, are requesting a 20.7’ front setback variance and a 3.4’
side setback variance on property at 657 N Mobile Street. The property is zoned R-2 – Medium
Density Single-Family Residential District and it is a waterfront lot.
Comments:
The Applicant’s variance narrative
(Exhibit A) chronicles an
approximately 2.5-year effort to
construct a new home, including
complaints of a Contractor who is no
longer involved with the project. In
summary, an un-signed survey dated
January 7, 2025 (Exhibit B) revealed
that the house was not built in the
proper location and prompted this
Application that was originally
submitted on March 3, 2025. Figure
1 illustrates where the building is
currently built. Figure 2 is a recent
aerial photo (6/9/2025) with an
approximation of the setbacks and
property lines. Each variance request will be described and evaluated separately.
20.7’ Front Setback Variance:
Per the supplied survey, the
existing building is 14.3 feet from
the front property line. The front
setback is 35 feet. Therefore, the
variance request is the for the
difference 20.7’. The Applicant has
not proposed any alterations to
the building currently. If granted,
the variance would result in a 14.3’
front setback.
Figure 3 is a view looking south.
For clarity, the property line atop
the bluff exists due to the parkland
and unimproved R.O.W.
Figure 1: Survey of Current Conditions
Figure 2: Photo taken on June 9, 2025 showing current conditions and approximation of
the setback and property line.
J C· 'I 5 -,\
Covered Porch
New House
Buildable Area
(Ins i de Setbacks)
2 BOA 25.05 – 657 N Mobile St
Figure 3: Approximation of property line and location of park.
3.4’ Side Setback Variance:
The applicant is also seeking a side setback variance of 3.4 feet. As shown in Figure 4, the
building (blue line) falls within the buildable area (shaded yellow). A side setback variance is
not needed for the primary structure. There is also a “Proposed Covered Walkway” circled in
red on Figure 4. Figure 5 is a current aerial with the framework of the proposed covered
walkway. According to the survey the proposed walkway is, at most, encroaching 3.4’ into the
side setback.
3 BOA 25.05 – 657 N Mobile St
Figure 4: Recent survey with side setbacks and location
of proposed covered walkway.
Figure 5: Current aerial with framework for covered walkway.
Approximate location of setbacks and property line are overlayed
for reference.
'r .. ·7::-··
I j• I 1--· .. ''
~i
'·
~ I;/) I
J. ~ .,
"=-:· -.. I ~,
--I
~
D I "-
I
4 BOA 25.05 – 657 N Mobile St
Analysis:
Article II, Section C.e.(1) establishes the review criteria for a Variance as follows:
(a) There are extraordinary and exceptional conditions pertaining to the particular piece of
property in question because of its size, shape, or topography;
1. The lot is non-conforming due to the width. Standard R-2 lots are a minimum of 75’ in
width and a minimum area of 10,500 square feet. The Subject lot is 66’ wide and
approximately 19,200 square feet in area. There is approximately 9,200 square feet of
area inside the buildable area.
2. The Owner of Lot 4-A also owns Lot 4-B, which is an unbuildable lot. The two lots are
separated by both an unopened right-of-way and parkland.
3. While there is a bluff nearby, the upper area of the bluff –the area where the house is
built is relatively flat – and not extraordinarily or exceptionally prohibitive to build upon.
(b) The application of the ordinance to this particular piece of property would create an
unnecessary hardship. Personal financial hardship is not a justification for a variance.
1. When the Palesano Place Re-plat was recorded in 2021, which created the Subject
Property, setbacks were established in cooperation with the Palesano’s, who still own
the adjacent lot to the south. Careful consideration was given to ensure there is
sufficient buildable area on the Subject Property.
2. For approximately a year – mid-2023 to mid-2024 – there was little to no construction
activity on-site. Based on discussions with the Applicant and the provided narrative, it is
clear that – at minimum – there were significant challenges with a former contractor
who no longer holds a license in Alabama. While those complaints will be heard in
Court, and Staff is sensitive to those challenges, both our Zoning Ordinance and former
court rulings offer clear guidance. Personal financial hardship is insufficient justification
to establish an ‘unnecessary hardship’ and, thus, is not reason to grant a variance.
(c) Such conditions are peculiar to the particular piece of property involved; and,
1. In Staff’s opinion, there is little reason to conclude the request for these variances are
peculiar to the particular piece of property in question.
(d) Relief, if granted, would not cause substantial detriment to the public good and impair the
purpose and intent of this ordinance; provided however, that no variance may be granted
for a use of land or building or structure that is prohibited by this ordinance.
1. The Applicant stated the new house is in the same location as the old house that was
demolished (Exhibit C). Article VII, Section B.3 of the Zoning Ordinance provides the
following guidance on “Non-conforming Structures”:
A non-conforming structure, which is not intentionally damaged, destroyed, or
removed, may be restored within one year from the date of the event. If the structure
is not re-constructed in one year all restorations and improvements shall be in
compliance with applicable ordinances. The burden of proof of date of damage or
destruction shall be on the person proposing the restoration.
5 BOA 25.05 – 657 N Mobile St
The older home was intentionally demolished; therefore, all new construction shall
comply with applicable ordinances.
2. The Applicant also states the current location of the home is “in-line” with other houses
to the north and south. Staff does not have accurate survey information to justify the
exactness of this statement, but we did review adjacent properties. Figure 6 shows the
approximate front building lines overlain on the aerial provided by the Applicant (Exhibit
D).
Figure 6: Baldwin County Parcel Viewer Screenshot of adjacent properties with approximate front building lines highlighted in
yellow.
Article VII, Section D.3 – “Non-Conforming Lots” provides the following that may be of
some relief.
The minimum front setback required for the district (and, on corner lots, the street
side setback) shall not apply to any lot where the average front building line(s) of the
adjacent lot(s), is less than the minimum setback required for the district. In such
cases, the front building line may be the same as the average front building lines(s)
of the adjacent lot(s). In no case, shall the front building line be more than 5’ less
than the minimum setback required for the district.
II) <
D Ba n County oa
D O Balc/1,sJn Ccun ry C:0,,IOO<$
0 0 nCountylmage,y20l23
• l
• Find
8y Al!ro.,to By
$efaCIAL.ay
p
Ownar _, (1 1 111 l ch.or,ol
~ ■ ,sv.kcsg,s.com C c!J + IC)
6 BOA 25.05 – 657 N Mobile St
Essentially, the Applicant may choose to average the existing front setback of the two
adjacent lots and their front building line “may be the same as the average front
building line(s) of the adjacent lot(s)”. Currently, the lot to the south is undeveloped,
but the setback is 35’. We do not have accurate information for the lot to the north but
estimate the front building line somewhere near 20 feet. The average front building line
of the adjacent lots is 27.5 feet (20+35/2=27.5). Also important to note is the following
requirement, “In no case, shall the front building line be more than 5’ less than the
minimum setback required for the district”. Thirty-five feet is the minimum setback
required. Therefore, theoretically, Staff could administratively approve a front building
line of 30’. A survey would be needed to confirm adjacent front building line(s).
3. Relief if granted, should not cause substantial detriment to the public good. Staff did
receive concerns from neighboring property owners, especially regarding sights lines
and obstructed views. While challenging to determine, Figure 7 attempts to illustrate
the obstructed sight lines by the existing house in the current location vs. within the
setbacks. The difference is the obstructed view. “Substantial detriment” can be
somewhat subjective. From whose viewpoint should we evaluate? Staff acknowledges
there are partial views blocked by the current location of the home but does not feel
this concern alone is enough to either deny, nor support, the requested variances.
Figure 7 is a view facing south. Figure 8 is a view looking north.
Figure 7 Figure 8
7 BOA 25.05 – 657 N Mobile St
4. The proposed covered walkway lies within the side setback. While the framing exists, it
remains uncovered. Open air structures, such as arbors, have been allowed in the past.
If agreeable to the Board, Staff could support leaving the existing framing uncovered.
Recommendation:
In conclusion, Staff is sympathetic to the Roberts. However, evaluating the requests, Staff feels
the current conditions are self-created hardships, even though they may be caused by an agent
or agents. Being clear that financial difficulties are not reasons for a variance, Staff does not
feel there is an “unnecessary hardship” that specifically relates to the land rather than personal
circumstances.
Staff recommends Denial of BOA 25.05
Narrative summary:
In April 2021, Melanie and Bob Roberts purchased the property at 657 N. Mobile St. from
Rick and Cari Palesano in Palesano Place Subdivision (formerly Volanta Subdivision). We
sold our house of 12 years in Fairhope to partially finance building a new residence. For the
last 3 years, we’ve rented a house at 16480 County Road 3 from Brady and Rob Berglin.
In 2022, we let a bid for construction of our new home. We selected Carter Hill
Construction (CHC) from Baton Rouge, LA. CHC had just finished Melanie’s brother’s
house in Baton Rouge and had family ties in Fairhope. CHC also submitted a lump sum bid
and agreed to a lump sum contract, which I felt would protect us from any overages. It
turned out to be the perfect contract vehicle for CHC to steal hundreds of thousands of
dollars. CHC signed the American Institute of Architects (AIA) contract in November 2022,
work began shortly thereafter.
I’ve included the Complaint filed November 20, 2024, in the Circuit Court of Baldwin
County chronicling the Fraud, Bad Faith, and Misrepresentation by CHC. I’ve met with City
of Fairhope officials, members of the Fairhope Police Department, members of the District
Attorney’s office, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to get help in this case.
In short, once the project was abandoned by CHC, Melanie and I began picking up the
pieces. We started by “re-paying” subcontractors and supply vendors for work and material
we’d already paid for. We replaced all siding, all brick, the roof, all windows, the plumbing,
and poured missing fireplace hearths. This coupled with buying new code compliant
windows and exterior doors, low bids on paint, exterior millwork, interior trim, etc., plus the
$250,000 stolen by CHC, has amounted to approximately $750,000 or a 187% increase in
additional cost, excluding additional construction loan interest.
In October 2024, we were granted a 9-month extension on the construction loan, but with a
rate hike of 3.75%...almost double. We’re currently paying on average, $13,000 per month
in interest. In 2024 alone, we paid $100,000 in interest that we shouldn’t have had to pay.
Also in October 2024, Robert Brown, graciously agreed to help finish the house. We
determined that the house is built in the wrong location. A new survey revealed that the
edge of the side deck/stairs are 3.4 feet into the South setback and the front (bayside) of
the house is 20.7 feet into the West setback or 14.3 feet from the west property line. The Lot
is zoned as R2 but does not meet the Minimum Width Requirement of 75 ft and is therefore,
a non-conforming lot. The Land Use is also classified as “Waterfront Improved” by the
Baldwin County Tax Assessor’s Office. This is the reason we’re humbly requesting a
variance.
This house and what we paid for the property, has already greatly increased the value of the
neighbors’ houses and land. I’ve included aerial pictures of the placement of the original
house and my house. As you will see, my house is approximately in the same location as
the original house and in-line with the other houses to the north and south.
We’ve spent everything we have and borrowed additional money from my place of
employment and friends to keep the project going. God has brought us to our knees. We
have no pride. We need your help. Without the Board’s help, without a variance, we’ll have
to walk away from the house and because Alabama is a deficiency state, we will be most
certainly facing bankruptcy.
We’re not out of towners…we’ve lived in Fairhope for 16 years. Melanie and I raised our 2
daughters here and we hope they raise their families here as well. We chose not to
downsize but to build a house meant for grandchildren, for family Christmases, for
Thanksgivings, and summer vacations. We’re not extravagant people. We’re two people
who decided to take a leap of faith and build their dream home. We’ve been met with fraud,
crushing financial trials and a crucible of humiliation. But, by keeping sincere and steadfast
hearts, and fear of the Lord, we hope for joy and mercy.
AlaFile E-Notice
To:Michael C. Niemeyer
mniemeyer@handfirm.com
05-CV-2024-901674.00
NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
The following complaint was FILED on 11/20/2024 9:57:25 AM
ROBERT ASHLEY ROBERTS ET AL V. CARTER HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC ET AL
05-CV-2024-901674.00
Notice Date: 11/20/2024 9:57:25 AM
BRENDA Q. GANEY
CIRCUIT COURT CLERK
BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
SUITE 10
BAY MINETTE, AL, 36507
251-937-0280
brenda.ganey@alacourt.gov
312 COURTHOUSE SQUARE
WDEA
/s/ Michael C. Niemeyer11/20/2024 9:57:23 AMNIE004
ATTORNEY CODE:
UNDECIDEDNOYESMEDIATION REQUESTED:
NO MONETARY AWARD REQUESTEDMONETARY AWARD REQUESTEDRELIEF REQUESTED:
NOYESHAS JURY TRIAL BEEN DEMANDED?
OTHERO
TRANSFERRED FROM
OTHER CIRCUIT COURT
APPEAL FROM
DISTRICT COURT
REMANDED
INITIAL FILING
T
A
R
FORIGIN:
CVXX
COMP
WTEG
RPRO
FELA
PFAB
MSHC
FORF
FORJ
CVUD
Equity Non-Damages Actions/Declaratory Judgment/
Injunction Election Contest/Quiet Title/Sale For Division
EQND
TOCN
Birth/Death Certificate Modification/Bond Forfeiture Appeal/
Enforcement of Agency Subpoena/Petition to Preserve
CONT
CTMP
COND
CVRT
MSXX
OTHER CIVIL FILINGS (cont'd)
ANPS
ADPA
APAA
ACCT
ABAN
OTHER CIVIL FILINGS
TORE
TOPE
TORTS: PERSONAL INJURY
TOXX
TBFM
TOOM
TOLM
TOWA
TOPL
TOMM
TOMV
TONG
TORTS: PERSONAL INJURY
NATURE OF SUIT:
Other
Individual
Government
First Defendant:Business
Other
Individual
Government
BusinessFirst Plaintiff:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
GENERAL INFORMATION
Judge Code:
11/20/2024
05-CV-2024-901674.00
Date of Filing:
Case Number:
(Not For Domestic Relations Cases)
CIRCUIT COURT - CIVIL CASE
COVER SHEET
Form ARCiv-93 Rev. 9/18
Unified Judicial System
State of Alabama
ROBERT ASHLEY ROBERTS ET AL v. CARTER HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC ET AL
Select primary cause of action, by checking box (check only one) that best characterizes your action:
Date
Note: Checking "Yes" does not constitute a demand for a
jury trial. (See Rules 38 and 39, Ala.R.Civ.P, for procedure)
Signature of Attorney/Party filing this form
EPFA
Election to Proceed under the Alabama Rules for Expedited Civil Actions:YES NO
QTLB
Wrongful Death
Negligence: General
Negligence: Motor Vehicle
Wantonness
Product Liability/AEMLD
Malpractice-Medical
Malpractice-Legal
Malpractice-Other
Fraud/Bad Faith/Misrepresentation
Other:
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-Personal Property
-Real Properly
-
-
-
-
-
Abandoned Automobile
Account & Nonmortgage
Administrative Agency Appeal
Administrative Procedure Act
Adults in Need of Protective Service
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Civil Rights
Condemnation/Eminent Domain/Right-of-Way
Contempt of Court
Contract/Ejectment/Writ of Seizure
Conversion
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Eviction Appeal/Unlawful Detainer
Foreign Judgment
Fruits of Crime Forfeiture
Habeas Corpus/Extraordinary Writ/Mandamus/Prohibition
Protection From Abuse
Elder Protection From Abuse
Quiet Title Land Bank
Railroad/Seaman (FELA)
Real Property
Will/Trust/Estate/Guardianship/Conservatorship
Workers’ Compensation
Miscellaneous Circuit Civil Case
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/20/2024 9:57 AM
05-CV-2024-901674.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
BRENDA Q. GANEY, CLERK
DOCUMENT 1
.Q.
□ ~ ~ □
□ □ □ □
□ □
□
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
~ □ □ □
□
□ □
□ □
□
□
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
□ □
~ □ □
□ □
□ ~
~ □
□ □ ~
□ ~
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
ROBERT ASHLEY ROBERTS and
MELANIE WOODWARD ROBERTS
Plaintiffs,
v. CASE NO.:
CARTER HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC;
and JOSEPH CARTER HILL
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Robert Ashley Roberts (“Bob Roberts”) and Melanie Woodward Roberts
(“Melanie Roberts”) (collectively “the Roberts”) submit the following as their complaint against
Defendants Carter Hill Construction, LLC and Joseph Carter Hill:
PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiffs are both residents and citizens of Baldwin County, Alabama.
2. Defendant Joseph Carter Hill (“Hill”) was a licensed homebuilder under Alabama
law and has subjected himself to the jurisdiction of this Court by conducting business in Baldwin
County, Alabama.
3. Defendant Carter Hill Construction, LLC (“CHC”) is a foreign limited liability
corporation that has subjected itself to the jurisdiction of this Court by conducting business in
Baldwin County, Alabama.
4. This Court has jurisdiction over the Parties and the subject matter of this action as
most of the conduct of the Defendants that is material to this action occurred in Baldwin County,
Alabama, and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of this Court.
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
11/20/2024 9:57 AM
05-CV-2024-901674.00
CIRCUIT COURT OF
BALDWIN COUNTY, ALABAMA
BRENDA Q. GANEY, CLERK
DOCUMENT 2
2
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. In April 2021, the Roberts purchased a lot located at 657 North Mobile Street in
Fairhope, Alabama. The Roberts purchased this lot to build a new home.
6. In 2022, the Roberts begin planning to construct their new home by obtaining bids
from homebuilders. One of the homebuilders who submitted a bid was Hill who submitted a bid
through his company, CHC. In September 2022, the Roberts selected Hill and CHC as the
homebuilder to construct their new home.
7. Upon information and belief, Hill and CHC were having significant liquidity
problems with their homebuilding business in the months leading up to September 2022. Hill and
CHC had recently sold receivables from their homebuilding business to at least two factoring
companies, also known as merchant cash advance companies. Hill and CHC sold their receivables
to these factoring companies because they were unable to adequately fund their ongoing
homebuilding projects with available cash flow from ongoing projects or traditional lending
sources. Hill and CHC concealed and failed to disclose to the Roberts that they were having
liquidity issues and had sold their receivables, including the receivables that Hill and CHC were
expecting to receive from the Roberts’ project, to at least two factoring companies. This
information would have been material to the Roberts in their decision to select Hill and CHC to
construct their new home.
8. On September 13, 2022, the Roberts met with Hill to discuss cost estimates for the
project, material and design selections, and other general items concerning the construction of their
new home. On September 16, 2022, Hill sent an email to the Roberts with a proposed contract
and draft exhibits to that contract.
DOCUMENT 2
3
9. Over the next few weeks, the Roberts, their architect, and Hill exchanged emails
and revisions of the draft contract, the plans and specifications and other contract exhibits.
10. As soon as Hill was informed that he and CHC had been selected to construct the
Roberts new residence, he applied for an Alabama homebuilder license. Neither Hill nor CHC had
ever been licensed as a homebuilder in Alabama.
11. When the contract was completed and ready for execution by the parties, Bob
Roberts informed Hill that he planned to sign the contract but would hold the required ten percent
(10%) initial deposit until Hill and CHC obtained an Alabama Homebuilder License. Hill
represented to the Roberts verbally and in writing that he was concerned with the Roberts not
immediately paying the initial deposit because subcontractors and vendors from whom he claimed
to have received pricing would only hold their pricing for thirty days. Upon information and belief,
Hill and CHC had not obtained pricing from subcontractors and vendors on many items for the
Roberts’ project, and Hill was pressing the Roberts to pay the initial deposit because of the extreme
liquidity problems that Hill and CHC were facing with respect to their other ongoing homebuilding
projects, personal obligations, and their obligations to the factoring companies to whom they had
sold their receivables. Again, Hill did not inform the Roberts of these liquidity problems, and this
information would have been material to the Roberts’ decision to execute a contract with CHC to
construct their new home.
12. Effective October 6, 2022, the Roberts and CHC executed an AIA standard form
agreement between owner and contractor. The contract was signed by Hill and Bob Roberts.
13. On November 2, 2022, the Roberts paid the initial ten percent (10%) deposit
specified in the contract to CHC in the amount of $143,198.70 via wire transfer to a bank account
of CHC. Prior to the Roberts making that deposit payment to CHC, Hill represented to the Roberts
DOCUMENT 2
4
in multiple conversations both in person and on the phone that he would use those funds to make
initial deposits for certain materials that would be needed for the project, such as cabinets,
windows, doors, and other items more specifically described below. Hill knew at the time he made
those representations that they were false and that he did not intend to utilize the initial deposit of
construction funds from the Roberts to purchase materials for their project, but rather would use
some or all the Roberts’ deposit funds to pay other obligations that both CHC and Hill had incurred
for other projects and other matters.
14. On or about December 6, 2022, Hill submitted CHC payment application #1 to the
Roberts. In that application, Hill certified under his signature that the work that was described in
this pay application had been completed in accordance with the contract documents, and that all
amounts referenced had been paid by CHC for work described as completed in that pay application.
More specifically, Hill represented under his signature this pay application that the payments that
CHC had previously received from the Roberts for work that CHC had described as either
completed or partially completed had been paid by the CHC for work and or materials for the
Roberts’ project. For example, in pay application #1, Hill represented that CHC had paid deposits
for the windows to be installed in the Roberts’ home in the amount of $22,295, and that payment
of this deposit represented 65% completion of the purchase and installation of windows for the
project. At the time he made this representation, Hill was aware that CHC had paid no money to
any window supplier for deposits and had ordered no windows for the project, and that the actual
percentage of completion for this line item on these scheduled values was 0%. Hill made this
representation in this payment application intentionally and with the intent to deceive the Roberts.
The Roberts relied upon this intentional misrepresentation by Hill to issue a payment to CHC for
DOCUMENT 2
5
pay application #1 in reliance upon Hill’s fraudulent misrepresentations about the windows for the
project.
15. As another example of Hill’s fraudulent misrepresentation in pay application #1,
Hill represented that prior to his submission of this pay application CHC had paid a deposit to
order exterior doors for the project in the amount of $7,683. Hill was aware at the time that he
made this misrepresentation that CHC had paid no money to any supplier to order or purchase
exterior doors for the project. In addition, in pay application #1 Hill misrepresented to the Roberts
that the exterior door item on CHC’s schedule of values was 65% complete when in fact Hill was
aware that this actual percentage of completion was 0%. This misrepresentation by Hill in pay
application #1 was intentional and made with an intent to deceive the Roberts, and the Roberts
relied upon this intentional misrepresentation by Hill when they made payment to CHC in response
to pay application #1.
16. CHC submitted a total of eleven pay applications to the Roberts during the project.
Hill and CHC committed at least eighty-one separate misrepresentations in the pay applications.
More specifically, Hill expressly represented on at least eighty-one occasions in the pay
applications that CHC had made payments for material deposits or work done on the project, when
in fact no money had been paid toward those items. In addition, for those same eighty-one separate
items Hill misrepresented to the Roberts a percentage of completion between 35% and 65%, but
Hill knew at the time he made the representation that the actual percentage of completion was 0%.
Hill selected the items about which he would misrepresent the money paid and percentage of
completion strategically so that the Roberts would not detect his fraudulent scheme. Each of the
items that Hill misrepresented was one that would be delivered at a later stage of the project, such
as cabinets, countertops, millwork/trim carpentry, gutters/downspouts, interior doors, shutters,
DOCUMENT 2
6
garage doors, windows, exterior doors, wood flooring, porch flooring, tile materials, bath/showers,
drywall, plumbing fixtures, HVAC and a generator. The Roberts relied on these intentional
misrepresentations by Hill and continued to pay money to CHC in reliance upon Hill’s fraudulent
misrepresentations.
17. During the project there were discussions between Hill and the Roberts concerning
the selection of a range in the kitchen made by a company called Lacanche. The agreement
between Hill and the Roberts was that the Roberts would pay CHC, in advance, the entire purchase
price of the Lacanche range, and in turn CHC would purchase the range, have it delivered, and
installed it in their kitchen. The Roberts paid $32,625 to CHC at Hill’s request based upon the
representation by Hill that he would use all that money to purchase the range. Hill knew at the
time that he was not going to use all the money to purchase the range for the Roberts’ home, and
that he would misappropriate a portion of that money to pay other obligations that Hill and CHC
had for projects and matters unrelated to the Roberts’ project. In fact, CHC remitted only $19,515
to the supplier for the purchase of the range and used the other $13,050 of the funds that the Roberts
had paid to CHC for obligations that Hill and/or CHC had incurred on projects and matters
unrelated to the Roberts’ project. The Roberts paid the entire purchase price of the range to CHC
in reliance upon Hill’s fraudulent misrepresentations regarding his intended use of those funds to
purchase the range for the Roberts’ project.
18. In addition to misrepresentations concerning specific items on CHC’s schedule of
items of materials and work, Hill also misrepresented on various pay applications the amount of
CHC’s fee to which CHC was entitled. Through the eleven pay applications that Hill submitted
on behalf of CHC to the Roberts, Hill represented that the project was 63% complete at the time
pay application #11 was submitted. Hill was aware that his representation to the Roberts that the
DOCUMENT 2
7
project was 63% complete and that CHC was entitled to 63% of its agreed upon fee was a false
representation. Hill knew that if he had accurately represented to the Roberts through the pay
applications the percentage of completion for the items that were 0% complete, CHC would have
been entitled to less than the amount of fee that CHC collected from the Roberts. In addition, in
all the pay applications Hill misrepresented the amount of materials sales tax that CHC had paid
on materials that Hill fraudulently claimed that CHC had purchased for the Roberts’ project. Hill
intentionally misrepresented the amount of CHC’s fee that had been earned and the amount of
sales tax incurred on the Roberts’ project so that he could obtain a portion of the Roberts’
construction funds before he was entitled to receive these funds, and so that he could divert those
funds to obligations that CHC and he had incurred for projects and matters unrelated to the Roberts’
project.
19. As a result of Hill’s fraudulent representations that he made individually and on
behalf of CHC, the Roberts paid at least $367,000 of their construction funds to CHC for material
deposits, material purchases and/or work performed on the project that CHC had never incurred
or performed. Hill and CHC were likely paid additional amounts of the Roberts’ construction
funds to which they were not entitled because of errors by Hill and CHC in the installation of the
siding on the structure. Those amounts are to be determined. CHC was able to obtain receipt and
control over this amount of the Roberts’ construction funds solely due to the fraudulent
misrepresentations Hill made both in connection with the initial deposit paid under the contract,
the fraudulent misrepresentations that were contained in all the pay applications submitted by Hill
and CHC to the Roberts, and the range for which CHC misappropriated a portion of the purchase
funds.
DOCUMENT 2
8
20. Beginning in late 2022 and through the early 2024, Hill and CHC were acting as
the homebuilders of record for the Roberts’ project. Throughout the spring and summer of 2023,
the project began to experience delays, and Bob Roberts questioned Hill about several of the items
that had not yet been delivered to the project, including the windows. In June 2023, Hill
represented to Bob Roberts that the windows had been ordered from a supplier in Baton Rouge
called Sun Millworks and were scheduled to be completed in two weeks. After the windows did
not arrive in June, July, August, or September 2024, during which time Carter Hill provided false
excuses to the Roberts concerning labor issues, glass shortages and other reasons for the delay,
Bob Roberts demanded that CHC have the house sprayed for mold and mildew since the house
had not been dried in and had been open to the elements while the windows were not delivered
and not installed. In November 2023, five windows were delivered to the jobsite, but only two
windows had glass, one had half of the necessary glass, and the other two had no glass. At that
time, Hill represented to Bob Roberts that the remaining windows would be delivered by
December 2023. Hill subsequently represented to Bob Roberts that that delivery for the windows
would be changed to January 2024. Subsequently Hill and CHC sought to have another window
supplier, United Millworks, supply the remaining windows. Hill represented to the Roberts that
he would obtain a refund of the $22,295 deposit that he claimed to have paid Sun Millworks and
pay that amount to United Millworks for a deposit for supplying the remaining windows. Upon
information and belief, United Millworks would provide a quote for the remaining windows if
CHC paid them approximately $10,000 that CHC owed United Millworks for another project.
Upon information and belief, Hill delivered a CHC check to United Millworks for approximately
$10,000 so United Millworks would go to the Roberts’ project to measure and provide a quote to
supply the remaining windows, but that check was a worthless instrument that was not honored by
DOCUMENT 2
9
CHC’s bank. The Roberts eventually had to pay United Millworks the entire amount for supplying
the remaining windows even though Hill had represented to the Roberts both verbally and in
numerous pay applications that he had paid the deposit for all windows to be supplied for the
project. Around January 22, 2024, Bob Roberts called Sun Millworks to inquire about the status
of window delivery and was informed by a representative of Sun Millworks that the windows were
not ordered until October 2023, and that CHC only ordered five windows. The Sun Millworks
representative informed Bob Roberts that they never received the $22,295 deposit that Hill had
represented was paid months before by CHC for the windows, and that CHC owed Sun Millworks
over $10,000 for the five windows that had been delivered in November. Bob Roberts then called
United Millworks and learned about the failure of Hill and CHC to pay a deposit to that supplier,
and about the worthless CHC check Hill sent to that supplier.
21. Bob Roberts then began investigating the status of Hill and CHC’s use of the
Roberts’ construction funds, and in January and February of 2024 Roberts learned that Hill had
been misrepresenting to the Roberts the amounts that CHC had been paying to various material
suppliers and subcontractors for deposits, purchase of materials and/or work on the project. Hill
and CHC forced the Roberts to take over the project because Hill and CHC had effectively
abandoned the project due to their inability to fund the purchase of materials and pay
subcontractors. As they took over the project, the Roberts learned that Hill had made many more
misrepresentations about CHC’s use and misappropriation of their construction funds throughout
the project.
22. In late January 2024, Bob Roberts confronted Hill and produced an initial
spreadsheet showing $102,000 as the approximate amount that Bob Roberts determined, at that
time, had been misappropriated by Hill and CHC. Hill admitted that he had not paid some deposits
DOCUMENT 2
10
as represented on the pay applications, and they agreed that Hill and CHC would refund to the
Roberts all the money that had been paid by the Roberts for deposits not made and for work that
had not been performed as represented. The Roberts and Hill further agreed that the Roberts would
take over the role of paying for materials and paying subcontractors. Hill then had a check for
$102,000 delivered to Bob Roberts in Fairhope on Friday, January 23, 2024, drawn on CHC’s
account with Citizens Bank in Baton Rouge. Because that check was delivered late on a Friday
before he could get to his bank, Bob Roberts drove to Baton Rouge on Sunday January 5, 2024,
and presented that check to cash or convert to a cashier’s check as soon as the Citizens Bank branch
opened on Monday January 26, 2024. Bob Roberts was informed by a representative of the bank
that they could not honor the check. Bob Roberts immediately contacted Hill who said that he was
waiting on a line of credit to fund and would get back to him. Upon information and belief, that
statement was false, and Hill knew it was false when he made it. Throughout the week Bob Roberts
attempted to negotiate the check, and finally realized that the check would not be honored.
Subsequently Bob Roberts deposited the check into this personal account to see if it would clear,
it was again dishonored by CHC’s bank. It was only after the Roberts’ lawyer delivered the
statutory worthless instrument letter to Hill and CHC, Hill delivered a certified check for $102,000
to the Roberts’ lawyer to replace the worthless check he had previously delivered.
23. Unbeknownst to the Roberts, throughout the time that Hill and CHC were
submitting fraudulent pay applications to the Roberts, Hill and CHC were involved in a liquidity
crisis that produced lawsuits against Hill and CHC filed by factoring companies and lenders
seeking to collect on loans and factoring agreements under which Hill and CHC were in default.
Throughout the latter half of 2022 and early 2023, Hill and CHC continued to borrow money from
factoring companies and other lenders, and continued to default on those obligations to the point
DOCUMENT 2
11
where Hill and CHC were sued in at least six separate arbitrations and court cases. Hill never
informed the Roberts that both he and CHC were experiencing a severe liquidity crisis and more
importantly, that he and CHC were using the Roberts construction funds to pay financial
obligations of Hill and CHC to satisfy their obligations to the factoring companies and for other
obligations that were unrelated to the Roberts project.
24. Upon information and belief, Hill and CHC engaged in the scheme of selling the
receivables of CHC from its homebuilding business to at least five different factoring companies
beginning as early as July 2022 and extending through December 2022. In this scheme, Hill and
CHC granted those factoring companies a security interest in those receivables, which would
include the construction funds being paid by the Roberts to CHC in reliance upon Hill’s
representations about the progress and percentage of completion of their project. Hill never
disclosed to the Roberts that he had already sold to the factoring companies a security interest in
construction funds from the Roberts. This information would have been material to the Roberts’
decisions to select Hill and CHC to construct their residence, and their subsequent decisions to
make payments to CHC based upon Hill’s representations contained in the pay applications Hill
was submitting on behalf of CHC. During their supervision of the project, Hill and CHC continued
to conceal their scheme of selling their receivables for the Roberts’ project to more factoring
companies, and granting those factoring companies a security interest in the Roberts’ construction
funds that were being paid to CHC. This information would have also been material to the Roberts’
decision to continue to make payments to CHC based upon Hill’s representations contained in the
pay applications Hill was submitting on behalf of CHC.
25. Hill and CHC submitted the fraudulent pay applications to the Roberts and
misrepresented their intent to use all the purchase funds for the range to purchase the range,
DOCUMENT 2
12
because they needed immediate cash to pay factoring companies and other creditors of Hill and
CHC. Hill and CHC knew that the Roberts would rely on these representations and that if they
truthfully represented the status of the material purchases and work completed on the project, they
would have received much less of the Roberts’ construction funds, if any.
26. As a result of the fraudulent conduct of Hill and CHC as described above, the
Roberts incurred damages in the form of payments they had to make to suppliers and
subcontractors for materials that Hill and CHC never ordered or purchased and/or work that was
never performed on the project. In effect, the Roberts paid for these items twice because they had
paid a portion of their construction funds to CHC based upon Hill’s misrepresentation that CHC
had paid deposits for or had purchased materials for the project, and then had to pay the suppliers
and subcontractors for the materials and work after Hill and CHC effectively abandoned the project
leaving the Roberts to complete it.
27. In addition to the scheme to defraud the Roberts that was planned and implemented
by Hill and CHC, Hill and CHC were responsible for several errors and omissions during the
construction of the Roberts’ residence before Hill and CHC affectively abandoned the project due
to their financial inability to perform their obligations under the construction contract. The
following is a list of the errors and omissions that the Roberts have discovered to date, and for
which Hill and CHC are responsible:
a. The windows selected, ordered, and furnished to the job by Hill and CHC do not
meet the city building code or the Gold Fortification requirements of the
construction contract.
b. Hill and CHC installed the siding installed improperly, and the Roberts have had to
incur significant expenses in paying subcontractors to correct the installation errors.
DOCUMENT 2
13
c. Hill and CHC failed to properly pour the foundational supports for the fireplace
hearths, causing the Roberts to incur expenses correcting this error.
d. Hill and CHC installed the back porch ceiling approximately two feet too low,
resulting in additional work to address that error.
e. Hill and CHC installed the plumbing pipes under the floors incorrectly, resulting in
significant additional work to remove, repair and replace much of the installed
plumbing piped and attachments.
f. Hill and CHC installed more electrical junction boxes and fixtures that the plans
specified, resulting in additional work and expense to remove those junction boxes
and fixtures that interfered with installation of other work.
28. As a result of these construction errors and omissions by Hill and CHC, the Roberts
have incurred, and will continue to incur, significant monetary costs to correct the defective work
performed or supervised by Hill and CHC.
29. As a result of Hill and CHC’s abandonment of their obligation to construct the
Roberts’ project in accordance with the contract, the Roberts have incurred and will continue to
incur cost to complete the project that will exceed the contract amount.
COUNT I
30. The Roberts adopt and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in the
previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
31. Hill and CHC communicated numerous verbal and written false representations to
the Roberts concerning Hill and CHC’s use of the Roberts’ construction funds obtained through
pay applications submitted by Hill on behalf of CHC. The false representations occurred during
the discussions leading up to the execution of the construction contract, and after the project
DOCUMENT 2
14
commenced. Hill and CHC were aware that these representations were false when communicated
to the Roberts by Hill. The Roberts relied upon these false representations by paying their
construction funds to CHC. Hill and CHC facilitated a scheme wherein they knew that they were
falsely obtaining construction funds from the Roberts, and then using those construction funds for
obligations of both Hill and CHC that were unrelated to the Roberts project.
32. As a result of the fraudulent misrepresentations of Hill and CHC as described
above, the Roberts incurred damages in the form of payments they had to make to suppliers and
subcontractors for materials that Hill and CHC never ordered or purchased and/or work that was
never performed on the project, despite the fact that the Roberts had paid CHC in reliance on the
misrepresentations that these payments had been made.
33. As a result of the fraudulent misrepresentations by Hill and CHC as described
above, the Roberts have suffered mental anguish and emotional anxiety associated with the
construction of their new home and the financial hardship caused by the misappropriation of their
construction funds.
WHEREFORE, the Roberts demand judgment against Hill and CHC for compensatory
damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.
COUNT II
34. The Roberts adopt and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in the
previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
35. Hill and CHC fraudulently concealed from the Roberts the severe liquidity crisis
that Hill and CHC were experiencing in the months leading up to and at the time that the
construction contract with the Roberts was executed, and during the time that Hill and CHC were
performing and supervising the construction of the Roberts’ residence. More specifically, Hill and
DOCUMENT 2
15
CHC fraudulently concealed from the Roberts the fact that Hill and CHC sold their receivables to
at least five factoring companies, and that through these agreements Hill and CHC had effectively
sold Hill and CHC’s right to apply all of the Roberts’ construction funds to materials and work for
their project. This information would have been material to the Roberts’ decision to select Hill
and CHC to construct their residence, and to enter into the construction contract with CHC. Hill
and CHC concealed this information from the Roberts because they knew that the Roberts would
not select them to construct the residence, and would not enter the construction contract, had Hill
and CHC disclosed this information. In addition, The Roberts would not have paid a significant
portion of their construction funds to Hill and CHC if they had been made aware of this scheme.
36. As a result of the fraudulent concealments by Hill and CHC as described above,
the Roberts have suffered mental anguish and emotional anxiety associated with the construction
of their new home and the financial hardship caused by the misappropriation of their construction
funds.
WHEREFORE, the Roberts demand judgment against Hill and CHC for compensatory
damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.
COUNT III
BREACH OF CONTRACT
37. The Roberts adopt and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in the
previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
38. The actions of Hill and CHC in submitting fraudulent pay applications as described
above constituted a breach of CHC’s contract with the Roberts.
39. The construction errors and omissions by Hill and CHC as described above
constitute a breach of CHC’s performance obligations under CHC’s contract with the Roberts.
DOCUMENT 2
16
40. As a result of the breaches of the contract by Hill and CHC as described above, the
Roberts incurred damages in the form of payments they had to make to suppliers and
subcontractors for materials that Hill and CHC never ordered or purchased and/or work that was
never performed on the project, and the Roberts have incurred, and will continue to incur,
significant monetary costs to correct the defective work performed or supervised by Hill and CHC.
WHEREFORE, the Roberts demand judgment against Hill and CHC for compensatory
damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.
COUNT IV
NEGLIGENCE
41. The Roberts adopt and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in the
previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
42. The actions, errors, and omissions of Hill and CHC as described above constitute
negligence in their performance of the construction and supervision of the Roberts project.
43. As a result of the negligence of Hill and CHC as described above, the Roberts
incurred damages in the form of payments they had to make to suppliers and subcontractors for
materials that Hill and CHC never ordered or purchased and/or work that was never performed on
the project, and the Roberts have incurred, and will continue to incur, significant monetary costs
to correct the defective work performed or supervised by Hill and CHC.
44. As a result of the negligence of Hill and CHC as described above, the Roberts have
suffered mental anguish and emotional anxiety associated with the construction of their new home
and the financial hardship caused by the misappropriation of their construction funds.
WHEREFORE, the Roberts demand judgment against Hill and CHC for compensatory
damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.
DOCUMENT 2
17
COUNT V
WANTONNESS
45. The Roberts adopt and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in the
previous paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
46. The actions, errors and omissions of Hill and CHC as described above constitute
wantonness in their performance of the construction and supervision of the Roberts project.
47. As a result of the wantonness of Hill and CHC as described above, the Roberts
incurred damages in the form of payments they had to make to suppliers and subcontractors for
materials that Hill and CHC never ordered or purchased and/or work that was never performed on
the project, and the Roberts have incurred, and will continue to incur, significant monetary costs
to correct the defective work performed or supervised by Hill and CHC.
48. As a result of the wantonness of Hill and CHC as described above, the Roberts
have suffered mental anguish and emotional anxiety associated with the construction of their new
home and the financial hardship caused by the misappropriation of their construction funds.
WHEREFORE, the Roberts demand judgment against Hill and CHC for compensatory
damages and punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the Court.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Michael C. Niemeyer
MICHAEL C. NIEMEYER (NIE004)
Attorney for Plaintiffs
OF COUNSEL:
Hand Arendall Harrison Sale, LLC
71 N. Section Street, Suite B
Fairhope, AL 36532
Telephone: (251) 990-0739
E-Mail: mniemeyer@handfirm.com;
DOCUMENT 2
18
DEFENDANTS TO BE SERVED BY CERTIFIED MAIL BY THE FILER:
JOSPEH CARTER HILL
7582 Rienzi Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70809-1139
7288 Bocage Blvd.,
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
CARTER HILL CONSTRUCTION, LLC
7582 Rienzi Blvd.
Baton Rouge, LA 70809-1139
7288 Bocage Blvd.,
Baton Rouge, LA 70809
/s/ Michael C. Niemeyer
OF COUNSEL
DOCUMENT 2
From:Gail Tart
To:planning
Subject:Variance Request: Roberts/657 North Mobile Street
Date:Wednesday, May 28, 2025 12:51:16 PM
Dear Members of the Board of Adjustments,
I am writing as a concerned resident regarding the application for a setback variance at 657 North Mobile Street
which is on the City Council June 16 agenda; unfortunately, I will be out of town and will not have the opportunity
to engage in the process.
As an adjacent neighbor to the property, I respectfully request clarification on the necessity and justification for a
20.7 front setback as well as a 3.4’ side set variance. The current zoning setbacks are established to ensure
uniformity, overall neighborhood integrity, property values and sight lines.
Gail Tart
659 North Mobile Street
Sent from my iPad