Tinseltown Cinema, LLC v. City of Olive Branch
| Docket Number: | 2013-CC-02014-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-03-2015 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Commercial-development application - Development plan - Zoning ordinance - Common knowledge Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Carlton, Fair and James, JJ. Dissenting Author : Maxwell, J., With Separate Written Opinion Dissent Joined By : Barnes and Ishee, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-14-2013 Appealed from: DESOTO COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: ROBERT P. CHAMBERLIN Disposition: Afformed decision to deny application to develop commercial property Case Number: CV2013-061-RCD |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Tinseltown Cinema, LLC |
WILLIAM P. MYERS |
|
|
| Appellee: | City of Olive Branch, Mississippi | BRYAN EDWARD DYE | ||
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 - Commercial-development application - Development plan - Zoning ordinance - Common knowledge |
| Summary of the Facts: | Tinseltown Cinema LLC filed an application to build a commercial development that included a movie theater and a restaurant on property in Olive Branch. The Olive Branch Board of Aldermen approved Tinseltown’s application. A few days later, the City discovered that Tinseltown’s property was mistakenly zoned as agricultural and residential (A-R) property, which was contrary to the C-4 “planned-commercial district” designation that appeared on the City’s comprehensive zoning plan and official zoning map. Therefore, the Board rescinded its approval of the application. Tinseltown successfully applied to have its property rezoned. However, the Board denied Tinseltown’s second application. Tinseltown appealed to circuit court which affirmed the Board’s decision. Tinseltown appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Tinseltown argues that the Board erred when it denied Tinseltown’s second commercial-development application. A city does not have the discretion to deny a building permit when an applicant meets the necessary building-code requirements and zoning ordinances. According to the Board’s resolution denying Tinseltown’s second application, Tinseltown’s development plan was not in the City’s best interest. The Board noted that Tinseltown’s development plan was “incompatible with a comprehensive, planned approach for commercial development in the area.” The Board further noted that Tinseltown did not present sufficient evidence of adequate buffering. It is undisputed that a landowner is not prohibited from proposing the construction of a traditional movie theater in a C-4 district. No portion of the C-4 zoning ordinance gives the Board the authority to find that a proposed use is simply out of character in a given location when the proposed use is not prohibited by the ordinance. The only portion of the C-4 zoning ordinance that addresses the Board’s power to consider the character of an area restricts the Board’s review to construction quality and architectural compatibility. But the Board did not relate its decision regarding the character of the area to those qualifiers. Therefore, the Board’s decision to deny Tinseltown’s second application based on the generalized character of the community was arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable. The Board indicated that the individual aldermen used their common knowledge and familiarity with the area when the Board denied Tinseltown’s application. While members of a municipal board may call upon their common knowledge and experience in the context of a decision whether to rezone property, there is no issue regarding the zoning of Tinseltown’s property. Therefore, the judgment is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
