FAIRHOPE, Ala. — The lawsuit over an eight-story condominium development in Point Clear was back in court last week in Bay Minette.

Baldwin County Circuit Judge Charles C. Partin heard arguments Tuesday, Nov. 13, on a summary judgment motion that, if granted, could end the case immediately in favor of the developers of The Colony at the Grand.

“I think the motion is due to be granted,” said Allan Chason, the lawyer representing the developer, Point Clear Partners LLC. “I don’t think the county has the power to restrict the height of the building.”

The case was filed by the Fairhope-Point Clear Association for Responsible Development, claiming that the building permit issued for the project by the city of Fairhope on April 6, 2006, was invalid.

The permit issued by the city allowed the developer to build eight “habitable” stories containing 56 condo units.

The complicated factual background of the case involves a prior property owner and developer who received approval for a site plan from Baldwin County in April 2001 for a project with a number of buildings, none of which would have been taller than 100 feet or had more than five habitable stories.

The property changed hands in 2004 without any construction having started.

The new developers, PPC, then applied with the city of Fairhope, not Baldwin County, and received the permit to build a different project with more habitable floors.

“This case is not about a height restriction,” said Ken Watson, the lawyer representing the plaintiffs. “We’re looking at it more from a density standpoint. We think the county did have the authority to approve the site plan.”

After the city issued the permit, the developers began construction

The building is now complete and tours are being offered at the site, said project manager Jason Tickle.

“Written contracts for sale of the units will start next year,” he said.

The plaintiff’s response to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment argues that its claim has been mischaracterized.

“PCP is playing a game of characterization because it no longer wants to build the development which its predecessor requested and the county approved,” the legal filing states. “PCP mischaracterizes Plaintiffs’ claim as one involving a height ‘restriction’ when in reality the claim merely seeks to enforce the approvals requested by the developer in its site plan which was approved by the county.”

The Colony at the Grand project consists of approximately 175 acres, according to information posted on its Web site.

An earlier proposal submitted by PCP that would have expanded the development to 500 acres was rejected by the city.

“It will be interesting to see what the judge does,” Tickle said. “We’re anxious to see it resolved so that we can move forward.”

No trial date has been set in the case.