Roundstone Dev., LLC v. City of Natchez
| Docket Number: | 2010-CT-00274-SCT Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00274-COA ; 2010-CA-00274-COA ; 2010-CT-00274-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2013 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-15-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Rezoning - Interpretation of zoning ordinance Judge(s) Concurring: Randolph, P.J., Lamar, Kitchens, Pierce and King, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Coleman, J. Dissenting Author : Chandler, J. Dissent Joined By : Dickinson, P.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER Writ of Certiorari: Yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-14-2010 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: AFFIRMED CITY’S DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST Case Number: 08-KV-0021-J |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court upheld the Circuit Court and the Court of Appeals. The original Court of Appeals opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO73974.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Roundstone Development, LLC |
MICHAEL V. CORY, JR.
DALE DANKS, JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | City of Natchez, Mississippi and The Mayor & Board of Aldermen of the City of Natchez, Mississippi | EVERETT T. SANDERS |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Rezoning - Interpretation of zoning ordinance |
| Summary of the Facts: | Roundstone Development, LLC, sought to develop an affordable-housing subdivision in the City of Natchez. The land had two different zoning classifications: O-L (Open-Land) and R-1 (Single-Family Residential). The City’s Planning Commission denied Roundstone’s site plan; it found that the O-L area must be rezoned R-1 before the development could be approved. The Mayor and Board of Alderman denied Roundstone’s rezoning request. The circuit court and the Court of Appeals both affirmed the City’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Interpretation of zoning ordinance Roundstone argues that the approval of a site plan is ministerial in nature and must be approved if all requirements are met. However, even if site-plan approval is ministerial in nature, approval is not required unless the site plan complies with the zoning ordinance. The City found that the ordinance requires that O-L districts be reclassified before being subdivided into urban building sites for single-family homes. As the Court of Appeals stated, “[t]he language of the ordinance is . . . flexible enough to accommodate the City’s interpretation.” Because the City’s interpretation of the ordinance is plausible, it was not manifestly unreasonable. Issue 2: Rezoning A party seeking reclassification of property must show that a mistake in the original zoning occurred or that a change in the character of the neighborhood occurred that justified rezoning and a public need existed for the rezoning. Roundstone argues that the Court of Appeals added another step to the analysis by stating that “[t]he only question under the ordinance was whether reclassification was ‘necessary and desirable.’” Roundstone is correct that a necessary-and-desirable analysis is not proper. The issue in this case is whether the character of the neighborhood had changed to such an extent as to justify reclassification from O-L to R-1, and whether a public need for rezoning existed. Three concerns were raised by Board members and local citizens including environmental concerns, traffic congestion, and the high density of rental houses in the area. The Board used its common knowledge and familiarity with its municipality in reaching its decision, and the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, illegal, or without a substantial basis. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
