Hall v. City of Ridgeland


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2008-CA-01763-SCT

Supreme Court: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 06-10-2010
Opinion Author: Graves, P.J.
Holding: On Direct Appeal and Cross-Appeal: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Real property - Standing - Section 17-1-17 - M.R.C.P. 23 - Zoning ordinance - Spot zoning
Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Carlson, P.J., Dickinson, Randolph, Lamar, Kitchens, Chandler and Pierce, JJ.
Procedural History: Bench Trial
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 09-22-2008
Appealed from: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
Judge: Samac Richardson
Disposition: A group of Ridgeland residents who live near Renaissance at Colony Park (“the Protestants”) appealed the City’s decision approving construction of the building to the Circuit Court of Madison County. The developers of the building (“the Developers”) intervened in the lawsuit (which initially named only the City of Ridgeland as an appellee) and filed two motions to dismiss, challenging the Protestants’ standing to sue.The circuit court denied the Developers’ motions to dismiss, but affirmed the City of Ridgeland’s decision to allow construction of the building, finding that the decision was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence.
Case Number: CI2007-0401-R

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Dr. Charles Hall, Janet H. Clark, Beatrice Langston Berry, Kate Sharp, Belinda Boozer, William Murphy, Carol Murphy, Steve Hanneke, Mary Ellen Martin, Mary S. Godbold, Bobby J. Stokes, Kevin Camp, Gary E. Payne, Maria Rosa Gutierrez, Denise Michelle Wilson, Mary Bishoff, John Austin Evans, Mel Evans, Larry Stowe, Paige Stowe and Kim H. Loper




STEVEN H. SMITH, JAMIE G. HOUSTON, III



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief
  • Appellant #1 Reply Brief

  • Appellee: The City of Ridgeland, Mississippi, Madison County Land Company, LLC, Southern Farm Bureau Brokerage Company, Inc., Bailey-Madison, LLC, 200 Renaissance, LLC, 100 Renaissance, LLC and Renaissance at Colony Park, LLC JERRY L. MILLS, JAMES H. GABRIEL, DONALD JAMES BLACKWOOD, JR, JAMES A. PEDEN, JR., GLENN GATES TAYLOR, LINDSEY M. TURK  

    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 - Standing - Section 17-1-17 - M.R.C.P. 23 - Zoning ordinance - Spot zoning

    Summary of the Facts: The City of Ridgeland adopted an ordinance to allow developers to construct a thirteen-story office building along Interstate 55, on the northeast corner of the nearly seventy-six-acre commercial development called Renaissance at Colony Park. A group of Ridgeland residents who live near Renaissance at Colony Park appealed the City’s decision approving construction of the building. The developers of the building intervened in the lawsuit (which initially named only the City of Ridgeland as an appellee) and filed two motions to dismiss, challenging the Protestants’ standing to sue. The circuit court denied the Developers’ motions to dismiss, but affirmed the City of Ridgeland’s decision to allow construction of the building. The Protestants appeal, and the Developers cross-appeal.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Standing The Developers argue that the individual Protestants lack standing because none of them owns the subject property, none of them owns land adjacent to or adjoining the subject property, and none of them owns land located within 160 feet of the subject property, the 160-foot distance being the distance mentioned in section 17-1-17. Section 17-1-17 provides that, if the owners of twenty percent or more of the lots located within 160 feet of the subject property protest a proposed zoning change, such change shall become effective only upon the favorable vote of three-fifths of the members of the local governing authority who are not required to recuse themselves. The statute is not applicable to the instant case, and it does not state that owners of lots located more than 160 feet away from the subject property lack standing. In Mississippi, parties have standing to sue when they assert a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation or experience an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant, or as otherwise provided by law. Further, for a plaintiff to establish standing on grounds of experiencing an adverse effect from the conduct of the defendant/appellee, the adverse effect experienced must be different from the adverse effect experienced by the general public. In this case, the Protestants own property in the City of Ridgeland; their property is located near the subject property (200 Renaissance); and they allege that the 200 Renaissance development will adversely impact them, their properties, and their use and enjoyment of their properties. Further, the 200 Renaissance development will impact the Protestants and other residents who live near 200 Renaissance in a different manner than it will affect other Ridgeland residents and the general public. Therefore, the Protestants have a colorable interest in the subject matter of the litigation and standing to challenge the conditional use permit regarding the height of the building. However, the Protestants do not have standing to challenge the variance for the setback requirement, as it is a minor variance, and it regards a part of the subject property bordering another property owned by an entity affiliated with the Developers. Such a variance will not have an adverse effect on the Protestants, and certainly not in a manner different or to a different degree than it will affect the general public. The Developers also argue that the Protestants are seeking an appeal in a manner not authorized by Mississippi law in that M.R.C.P. 23 expressly omits class actions, and M.R.C.P. 23.2 expressly omits actions related to unincorporated associations. Although Mississippi law does not permit class-action claims, it was not error for the trial court not to dismiss what the Developers label the “class action aspect of the appeal,” because the Court previously has allowed organizations of homeowners to appeal in zoning disputes. Issue 2: Ordinance The Protestants argue that the Ordinance was beyond the power of Ridgeland to make, and/or illegal and in violation of statutory, common law and Ridgeland’s own ordinances, and violated both statutory and substantive rights of the appellants by the actions of the Board. They also argue that the court’s orders allowed unlawful spot zoning. Zoning decisions will not be set aside unless clearly shown to be arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, illegal or without substantial evidentiary basis. Under Ridgeland’s Ordinance, a conditional use or special exception is effectively a license, granted by the Mayor and Board, in its discretion, to allow a specified use of land within a given zoning district, so long as it is of benefit to the city and does not adversely affect adjacent landowners. Ridgeland’s Ordinance provides for seven commercial zoning classifications. Under each zoning classification, the Ordinance specifies the type of land use allowed in that district, the types of conditional uses that may be permitted, and the dimensional requirements within that district. The Developers’ petition, as amended, sought a conditional use permit to build an office building within a C-4 district in excess of the usual height limitation of forty-eight feet or four stories set out in Ridgeland’s Zoning Ordinance. Section 440.03 of Ridgeland’s Ordinance specially allows conditional use permits for the construction of buildings in excess of forty-eight feet or four stories. The record shows that the petition was supported by evidence that the 200 Renaissance building would benefit the City and would not adversely affect adjacent landowners. The City of Ridgeland’s decision to approve the Developers’ request for a conditional use permit regarding the height of the 200 Renaissance building was not arbitrary or capricious and was supported by substantial evidence. The City of Ridgeland’s interpretation of Ridgeland’s Ordinance – finding that the FAR (Floor Area Ration) of .05 does not apply to a building greater than four stories – should be afforded great deference, if reasonable. The City’s interpretation is reasonable. One of the specifically enumerated conditional uses in a C-4 zoning district is to build a building in excess of forty-eight feet or four stories. It is reasonable to conclude that the allowance of a conditional use for one dimensional criterion affects the other dimensional criteria. Because a local authority’s reasonable interpretation of a zoning ordinance should be afforded great deference, the City of Ridgeland did not err by not explicitly granting permission to the Developers in the Ordinance to depart from Ridgeland Ordinance’s Section 440.04’s MBA and FAR dimensional requirements. It was not unreasonable for the City of Ridgeland to interpret its ordinance as not requiring adherence to Section 440.04.D’s FAR and Section 440.04.E’s MBA when a conditional use permit regarding height had been granted. Thus, failure to meet those Sections’ FAR and MBA requirements does not mean that the development fails to comply with all applicable regulations in the zoning district. The Protestant’s allegations of spot zoning are without merit, because the approval of the 200 Renaissance development was in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan of Ridgeland and Ridgeland Ordinance’s definition of conditional use states that the granting of a conditional use will not change the zoning of the property involved. Moreover, the 200 Renaissance development is located in, and surrounded by, commercial districts.


    Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court