Harrison v. Mayor & Bd. of Alderman of the City of Batesville
| Docket Number: | 2009-CA-00981-COA Linked Case(s): 2009-CA-00981-COA ; 2009-CT-00981-SCT ; 2009-CT-00981-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-26-2010 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Reversed and rendered. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Rezoning - Variance - Spot zoning Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Griffis, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J., dissents with separate written opinion Dissent Joined By : Myers, P.J., and Barnes, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment; Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-13-2009 Appealed from: PANOLA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Andrew C. Baker Disposition: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF BATESVILLE TO GRANT A ZONING VARIANCE Case Number: CV2008-239 BP2 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Scott Harrison and Mona Harrison |
PAUL BOWIE WATKINS JR., POPE SHANNON MALLETTE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mayor and Board of Alderman of The City of Batesville and Memphis Stone & Gravel Company | BENJAMIN E. GRIFFITH, EDWARD PATRICK LANCASTER, LAUREN M. WEBB, ROBERT TUBB JOLLY | ||
| Appellee #2: | ||||
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 - Variance - Spot zoning |
| Summary of the Facts: | Memphis Stone and Gravel Company filed a zoning-variance request in order to expand its mining operation to property adjacent to its currently leased property. Scott and Mona Harrison, owners and residents of property located near the leased property, opposed the requested variance. The Batesville City Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance, and the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Batesville approved the variance, with certain restrictions. The Harrisons appealed to circuit court, which affirmed the Mayor and Board of Aldermen’s order. The Harrisons appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The Harrisons argue that the variance should not have been granted because the variance results in impermissible spot zoning. The term ‘spot zoning’ is ordinarily used where a zoning ordinance is amended reclassifying one or more tracts or lots for a use prohibited by the original zoning ordinance and out of harmony therewith. The one constant in the cases where zoning ordinances have been invalidated due to “spot zoning” is that they were designed to favor someone. The mere fact that an area is small and is zoned at the request of a single owner and is of greater benefit to him than to others does not make out a case of spot zoning if there is a public need for it or a compelling reason for it. In this case, it is clear that the variance favors Memphis Stone to the exclusion of other parties, as it will be able to expand its existing operation to the property that it is leasing from the Seales and the Haires. In accordance with the Batesville zoning ordinance, mining is not permitted or allowed on a conditional basis in either an R-1 or C-2 district. Therefore, this is a classic case of spot zoning. Although Memphis Stone alleges in its operations narrative that “[t]he growth of Tate County demands a good source of local aggregate” and that “this deposit will be an asset to the local economy and will likely be lost to future residential development if not managed as a resource for construction material,” nothing in the record indicates that any evidence was presented to the Planning Commission showing a benefit to any entity other than Memphis Stone if its variance request were granted. There is nothing in the record to indicate that Memphis Stone is planning to provide the City with reduced-price aggregate or that the City will have any form of preference when Memphis Stone sells the aggregate that it has collected. The Harrisons also argue that pursuant to the Batesville city ordinance, Memphis Stone was required to prove that it would suffer a substantial hardship if the variance were not granted and that Memphis Stone failed to do so. Section 1204(5) of the Batesville city ordinance states the following about applications to vary or modify zoning: “The board of appeals shall have the following powers, and it shall be its duty: To vary or modify the application of any of the regulations or provisions of the ordinance where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of this ordinance, so that the spirit of this ordinance shall be observed, public welfare and safety secured and substantial justice done.” The record lacks evidence of any “practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship” that Memphis Stone would suffer if its variance request were not granted. Therefore, the judgment of the circuit court is reversed and rendered. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
