Collins v. Mayor & Council of the City of Gautier
| Docket Number: | 2008-CA-01929-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-29-2010 Opinion Author: Barnes, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Rezoning - Change in character of neighborhood - Spot zoning Judge(s) Concurring: Irving, Griffis, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee and Carlton, JJ. Dissenting Author : Myers, P.J., dissents with separate written opinion Dissent Joined By : King, C.J., and Lee, P.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-03-2008 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Kathy King Jackson Disposition: AFFIRMED CITY’S REZONING OF PROPERTY Case Number: 2008-00,067 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jimmy Collins and Felicia Collins |
JOHN PAUL BARBER |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mayor and Council of the City of Gautier, Mississippi | AMY LASSITTER ST. PE’, ROBERT G. RAMSAY, ROBERT W. WILKINSON | ||
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 - Change in character of neighborhood - Spot zoning |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Mayor and the City Council of Gautier rezoned a 13.5-acre lot from R-1, single family residential, to R-2, multi-family residential, at the developer’s request. Silver Girl, LLC, the owner and developer, wishes to construct condominiums on the property. Jimmy and Felicia Collins, owners of property adjacent to the subject property, opposed the rezoning and filed an appeal with the circuit court. The circuit court affirmed the City’s decision. The Collinses appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Before property is reclassified, an applicant seeking rezoning must prove by clear and convincing evidence either that there was a mistake in the original zoning, or the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify rezoning and that a public need exists for rezoning. In this case, no mistake in the original zoning has been alleged. In its ordinance, the city council approved the rezoning as it expressly found a change in the character of the neighborhood and the existence of a public need for rezoning the subject property to R-2. However, the city council did not make detailed or specific findings of fact regarding the change in the character of the neighborhood or the public need for rezoning; it stated only that its finding was “based on the evidence presented.” On appeal, the City points to the record and hearings before the city council and the planning commission, as well as the documents that were submitted in support of the developer’s application for rezoning. The Collinses’ primary argument against the City’s evidence is that much of it is irrelevant as it focuses on changes in the area surrounding Martin Bluff Road, rather than Roy’s Road, which the subject property fronts. However, the large size of the property in question and its proximity to Martin Bluff Road are sufficient to support the finding of a broader “neighborhood,” notwithstanding that the property fronts Roy’s Road. Even so, the evidence presented was insufficient to support the change in zoning. The changes cited by the City were in accordance with the original zoning plan. The use of property in accordance with an original zoning plan is not a material change of conditions which authorizes rezoning. The Collinses also argue that the City’s decision represents spot zoning. A zoning ordinance is illegal spot zoning where it is not in harmony with the comprehensive or well-considered land use plan of a municipality and is designed to favor someone. Both before and after the re-zoning, the property in question does not abut any area zoned R-2. The proponents for the zoning change admitted as much during their presentation to the planning commission. Thus, it constituted invalid spot zoning. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
