FAIRHOPE, Ala. — It’s a little like deja vu all over again.

So, not everyone was surprised when it was announced Monday night at the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting that a lawsuit had been filed Friday against the city and Mayor Tim Kant.

Lawsuits had been filed by the Dyas family against the city before, and several members of a group opposing a proposed increase in the size of a “big box” grocery store had learned of the lawsuit not long after it was filed.

They held statements they planned to read when that item came up on the agenda.

“I understand that now the owners of the Triangle are suing the city and Mayor (Tim) Kant,” the statement of Jenny Douglass, of Fairhope, read. “”Well, I’m tried of the Triangle owners trying yet again to bully their way onto the citizens of Fairhope.”

And many of the dozens of people who showed up were also not surprised that the item had been pulled abruptly from the agenda a few hours before the 5 p.m. meeting, eliminating the need for them to speak against the proposed changes to the Village North Planned Unit Development (PUD) on property owned by the Dyas family at the north entrance to Fairhope at Veteran’s Drive and U.S. 98.

That kind of action had happened before, when the developer withdrew a proposed amendment to the PUD the Friday before the case was to be considered by the City Council on Feb. 25.

“At the request of the applicant (Wallace Real Estate), Hutchinson, Rauch and Moore LLC (HRM) would like to request the withdrawal of the referenced application from any further consideration,” Christopher Baker, HRM director of planning, wrote in a letter delivered to the city’s planning department Monday afternoon.

Eric Dyas, a representative of the Dyas family, said he had requested Chuck Wallace of Wallace Real Estate to withdraw the application that sought to increase the size of the big box to 54,000 square feet, that is, to the same size as one approved directly across U.S. 98 at the Fly Creek Village PUD on property owned by the Corte family. The lawsuit filed Friday refers to that property as the “Corte Rectangle.”

“It’s over and done with,” Dyas said Monday afternoon before the hearing. “Our intention now is in trying to move forward with the plan that has been previously approved. Since (the city) approved (a commercial building) of that size across the street, we did not think it was going to be a problem. Obviously it turned out to be a big deal, and I regret that it did. I didn’t want to inflame it. I didn’t want it to become a bigger problem.”

However, the lawsuit may have lit a larger fire under local citizens opposed to what they claim is growth in the area in violation of city zoning law and the comprehensive plan.

“I read the accusations in the lawsuit,” Barbara O’Brien’s prepared statement read. She lives in the Colonial Acres subdivision across from the Triangle property. “(The complaint alleges) Closed door meetings were held between the mayor and the Triangle property owners in October of 2006 and again in August of 2007. The mayor is said to have promised the property owners that the City of Fairhope would approve zoning changes in the Triangle to allow for a big box store. When are the citizens of Fairhope going to have the respect of elected and appointed officials to withhold their promises behind closed doors and wait for open meetings to be held, in order to give everyone a chance to be heard?”

The 30-page complaint filed Friday morning in Baldwin County Circuit Court has been assigned to Judge Charles Partin in Bay Minette. Charles L. Dyas, Arthur C. Dyas, Pamela D. Vautier, Drew C. Dyas and Eric J. Dyas are the plantiffs suing the “City of Fairhope, a municipal corporation, Timothy M, Kant, individually, and A,B,C,D,E, F and G, being those persons, firms, corporations or other entities guilty of conspiring with Fairhope Mayor Timothy M. Kant and others for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of their vested rights in the Village North PUD approved by the City of Fairhope in 2002,” according to the complaint.

Kant said he had been advised by attorneys for the city, Chris Gill and Caine O’Rear of Hand Arendall in Mobile, not to discuss the case.

One of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs also kept his comments to a minimum.

“I really don’t want to make any comment other than what is contained in the complaint,” Matt McDonald said Tuesday morning. “We have had to allege with specificity what we thought Fairhope and the mayor have done improperly.”

O’Rear said he has not had time by press time to review the complaint to comment.

The lawsuit lays out an extensive history of the attempts by the Dyas family to develop the Triangle property, including lawsuits between the family and the city, alleged negotiations resulting in the settlement of the cases, the development of the Village North PUD as part of the settlement to the litigation, and subsequent discussions between the family and city regarding proposed changes to the Village North PUD and plans for traffic lights and street changes in and around the property and across U.S. 98 at the Fly Creek Village.

The lawsuit alleges seven causes of action, five against the city and two against Kant, individually. The claims against the city are for breach of contract, denial of equal protection, denial of due process, inverse condemnation, and negligence, carelessness and unskillfulness.

The claims against Kant are for misrepresentation and conspiracy and demand compensatory and punitive damages.

The gist of the complaint against the city is described in its second cause of action for equal protection and its demand for the following judgment:

“that pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the Dyases be awarded compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, together with interest, cost, and a reasonable attorney’s fee pursuant to 42 U.S.C.. Section 1988;

that the Fly Creek PUD approved by the City in October of 2006 be terminated and nullified in its entirety and that the property on which the Fly Creek Village PUD is located be rezoned back to the zoning applicable to it at the time of the City’s approval of the Village North PUD;

that the City of Fairhope be restrained and enjoined from implementing the modifications to the streets and traffic flows in and around the Village North PUD as approved by the City of March 6, 2008;

that the City of Fairhope install, as agreed, the traffic signal at the intersection of U.S. Highway 98 and Section Street and the roundabout at the intersection of Alabama Highway 104 and Section Street;

that the City of Fairhope be restrained and enjoined from engaging in any activity which is inconsistent with or detrimental to the Village North PUD approved by the City on December 11, 2002; and

that the Dyases be granted such other, further and different relief to which they may be entitled under the circumstances.”

As of Tuesday morning, the complaint had not been formally served on either the city or the mayor, the mayor’s secretary said.

Once the defendants have been served, they will have 30 days to answer the complaint.

Over the weekend, opponents of the proposed changes in the Village North PUD distributed more than 500 flyers encouraging local citizens to attend Monday’s meeting. That group played a role in turning out approximately 300 people at the commission hearing in December that recommended denial of changes in the Village North, Douglass said.

Douglass said the flyers were hung in bags around the mailboxes in neighborhoods from Highway 104 to Gayfer Avenue west of U.S. 98, as well as in Colonial Acres, streets by the yacht club, Coffee Loft and surrounding streets.

“I believe that this is the cornerstone of democracy, not meetings that are being held behind closed doors,” O’Brien’s prepared statement reads, referring to citizen participation in public meetings. “I am saying it again, we the citizens of Fairhope are tired of done deals behind closed doors.”