Drews v. City of Hattiesburg
| Docket Number: | 2003-CA-00823-COA Linked Case(s): 2003-CT-00823-SCT2003-CT-00823-SCT2003-CA-00823-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 06-09-2004 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-31-2005 |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-21-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Zoning - Variances - Spot zoning Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges, P.J., Irving, Myers, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Lee, P.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-13-2003 Appealed from: Forrest County Circuit Court Judge: Billy Joe Landrum Disposition: AFFIRMED DECISION OF THE HATTIESBURG CITY COUNCIL GRANTING ZONING VARIANCES Case Number: C102-0156 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court reversed this judgment on 3/31/2005. The SCT opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/OPINIONS/CO25085.PDF | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Fred H. Drews, III, and Bonnie Drews |
LAWRENCE CARY GUNN |
||
| Appellee: | City of Hattiesburg | CHARLES E. LAWRENCE |
|
|
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: | Zoning - Variances - Spot zoning |
| Summary of the Facts: | Lee Medical Development, LLC, applied for six zoning variances with the City of Hattiesburg concerning a proposed medical office project. Two of the requested variances were withdrawn. The Board of Adjustments granted four and denied two. Lee Medical and Fred and Bonnie Drews, residents of the area in question who opposed the variances, both appealed. On appeal, the Hattiesburg City Council approved all six variances. The circuit court affirmed. The Court of Appeals reversed and rendered. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Court of Appeals found that while the variances could arguably benefit the community, the city’s decision is directly contrary to the uses permitted by the city’s zoning ordinance for the property and constitutes spot zoning. Variances which are incompatible with the terms of an ordinance should not be granted. The changes proposed in the six variances are so dramatic that they constitute a rezoning to B-3, two levels beyond the B-1 (professional business district) lots in question. The differences between B-1 and B-3 are so extreme that if the variances are granted, spot zoning would occur. Hattiesburg’s proposed variances are not minor departures from the scope and intent of the B-1 classification, and Lee Medical and Hattiesburg failed to present any evidence that the current zoning provisions present an undue hardship or that unique circumstances are present. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
