City of Ridgeland, et al. v. Estate of Lewis, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2005-CC-00361-COA Linked Case(s): 2005-CC-00361-COA ; 2005-CT-00361-SCT |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Date: 11-28-2006 Opinion Author: Myers, P.J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Rezoning - Substantial change in character of neighborhood - Public need Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee, P.J., Southwick, Irving, Chandler, Griffis, Barnes, Ishee and Roberts, JJ. |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-24-2005 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: Samac Richardson Case Number: CI2001-0131 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mayor and Board of Alderman, City of Ridgeland, Mississippi, Shadowood/Wendover Homeowners' Association and Central Ridgeland Homeowners' Association |
|||
| Appellee: | The Estate of M.A. Lewis and Richard Wayne Parker |
|
||
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 - Substantial change in character of neighborhood - Public need |
| Summary of the Facts: | The Estate of M.A. Lewis and Richard Wayne Parker petitioned the Planning Commission for the City of Ridgeland to rezone a parcel of property, located on the corner of Lake Harbor Drive and Pear Orchard Road, from its single-family residential (R-2) designation under the plan then in effect to a restricted commercial (C-1) designation under the proposed City’s Comprehensive (Zoning) Plan. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to deny the request and retained the R-2 classification of the property. Lewis-Parker filed a petition to rezone the property from R-2 to C-1 with the Planning and Zoning Board. Before the public hearing on the petition was held, the Mayor and Board of Alderman adopted the new Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance, which once again designated the Lewis-Parker property as residential. At the close of the public hearing on the petition, the Planning and Zoning Board voted unanimously to deny the petition. Lewis-Parker appealed the decision to the Mayor and Board of Alderman which denied it. Lewis-Parker filed two Bills of Exceptions in the Circuit Court of Madison County. The court reversed the decisions of the Mayor and Board of Alderman, holding that the decision to deny the Lewis-Parker petition to rezone was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The court also held that the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan should be reversed. The Mayor and Board of Alderman appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Before property may be rezoned from one classification to another, the party seeking to have the property rezoned must prove by clear and convincing evidence that either there was a mistake in the original zoning, or that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify reclassification and there exists a public need for rezoning. The zoning decision of a local governing board is presumed valid, and the burden is upon the party seeking to set aside the decision to show that it was arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, illegal, not supported by substantial evidence, and not fairly debatable. Here, the issue as to whether there had been a substantial change in the area is fairly debatable. Lewis-Parker relied heavily on empirical data and the testimony of an urban planning expert to explain how the area around the Lewis-Parker property had become more commercialized. In opposition to the Lewis-Parker petition, city planners and engineers opined that the properties surrounding the Lewis-Parker property which Lewis-Parker claimed had been rezoned from residential to commercial were, in fact, Planned Urban Development properties zoned for either commercial or residential development. Therefore, no zoning changes had occurred in the area. The fact that Lewis-Parker’s expert testimony was contrary to the analysis of the city planners and engineers does not make the Mayor and Board of Alderman’s decision to deny the petition arbitrary or capricious. Such conflicting evidence only proves that the issue of a change in the area is fairly debatable. The issue of a public need for rezoning is also fairly debatable. Evidence was presented from the City’s planners and engineers that the City has ample undeveloped land available for commercial development. Further, the Mayor and Board of Alderman received strong and vocal opposition to any redesignation of the Lewis-Parker property from a large contingency of area residents. Substantial weight can be given to the concerns of its citizenry in determining whether a public need exists for rezoning. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
