A legal battle over a rejected Murphy USA gas station and convenience store proposed for downtown Mobile is moving to mediation, nearly two years after the project was first denied.
Mobile County Circuit Judge Ben Brooks has appointed retired Judge Charles Fleming to mediate the dispute between the project’s developers and the city’s Architectural Review Board. Under the court’s order, the developers, city representatives, attorneys and anyone with authority to settle the case must personally attend the entire mediation session.
The parties have until Sept. 17 to complete mediation and report the results back to the court. A status hearing has been set for 10:30 a.m. Sept. 18. The judge’s order makes clear that mediation “will not stop other pretrial activity or delay a potential trial,” meaning the case will continue moving toward trial even as settlement talks proceed.
How the Dispute Began
The fight traces back to October 2024, when Mobile’s Architectural Review Board unanimously voted to reject plans to tear down a vacant CVS building and replace it with a Murphy USA convenience store, fuel canopy and gas station along Government Street near Broad Street.
The Architectural Review Board reviews proposed construction and demolition projects within Mobile’s historic districts to determine whether they are compatible with the character of surrounding historic buildings and neighborhoods. When the board took up the Murphy USA proposal, residents packed the meeting to voice opposition, arguing that a large-scale gas station, convenience store and fuel canopy would clash with the historic district around it.
Board members cited concerns about the project’s design, its utility connections and its potential impact on the character and integrity of nearby historic neighborhoods. When the board voted to deny the project, the crowd in attendance applauded.
The Developers’ Appeal
Pan American Engineers, representing Murphy USA and property owner Hygia Inc., appealed the board’s decision to Mobile County Circuit Court on Oct. 15, 2024. The appeal argues the board’s denial was “arbitrary, unsupported by the facts and based on issues the developers argue the board was not legally permitted to consider.”
According to the developers, opposition to the project focused mainly on the fact that it would be a gas station and convenience store, rather than on whether the design itself met the city’s historic-development guidelines. The appeal states that Architectural Review Board staff had conducted a detailed review beforehand and determined the proposed development was consistent with applicable design guidelines and would not materially harm the historic district.
The developers further contend that board members improperly weighed in on whether the gas station would be economically viable and based their decision on subjective objections to elements such as utility panels, rather than strictly applying the district’s design standards.
The appeal also notes that the property is not classified as a contributing structure within the historic district and has been used for commercial purposes since 1926, housing a car dealership, a furniture and carpet outlet, an automotive paint shop and a muffler shop over the years.
In addition to challenging the denial of the gas station itself, the appeal takes issue with the board’s rejection of the project’s proposed signage. The developers say they agreed during the meeting to shrink the sign to the city’s required maximum of 64 square feet, but the board denied the signage request anyway.
The developers also argue the board failed to follow its own procedural rules, claiming the motion to deny the project did not specifically identify which facts supported the decision and instead referred broadly to matters raised during the meeting.
Through the appeal, the developers are asking the court to overturn the board’s decision, find that the project complies with applicable guidelines, and order the Architectural Review Board to approve the gas station, convenience store and signage as proposed.
What Mediation Means for the Case
The order sending the case to mediation does not approve the project or reverse the board’s decision. It simply requires both sides to attempt to work out a resolution before the case proceeds further through the court system. If mediation fails to produce an agreement, the case remains on track for further pretrial proceedings and a possible trial.