Roundstone Development, LLC v. City of Natchez, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CA-00274-COA Linked Case(s): 2010-CA-00274-COA ; 2010-CT-00274-SCT ; 2010-CT-00274-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2013 |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-15-2011 Opinion Author: Griffis, P.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Decision to require rezoning - Request to rezone - Fair housing act - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Motion to strike brief - M.R.A.P. 31(d) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Myers, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Irving, P.J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Dissent Joined By : Russell, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - OTHER Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 01-14-2010 Appealed from: Adams County Circuit Court Judge: Forrest Johnson Disposition: AFFIRMED CITY’S DENIAL OF REZONING REQUEST Case Number: 08-KV-0021-J |
|
| Note: | The SCT opinion affirming the COA can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/CO82499.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Roundstone Development, LLC |
MICHAEL V. CORY JR.
DALE DANKS JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | City of Natchez, Mississippi and The Mayor & Board of Aldermen of the City of Natchez, Mississippi | EVERETT T. SANDERS | ||
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 - Decision to require rezoning - Request to rezone - Fair housing act - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) - Motion to strike brief - M.R.A.P. 31(d) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Roundstone Development, LLC applied to rezone a parcel of real property in Natchez, from O-L (open land) to R-1 (single family residential) to develop a residential subdivision on the property. The Natchez mayor and Board of Aldermen denied Roundstone’s request to re-zone the property. On appeal, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the City of Natchez. Roundstone appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Decision to require rezoning Roundstone argues the development was in compliance with the ordinance and that the City’s decision to require re-zoning was arbitrary and capricious. Roundstone points out that single-family dwellings are permitted uses in both R-1 and O-L zones. Roundstone contends that because its subdivision was to contain single-family dwellings, no re-zoning was necessary. The ordinance in question states: “It is intended that land in [O-L] districts will be reclassified to its appropriate residential, commercial, and industrial category . . . whenever such land is subdivided into urban building sites.” The ordinance does not state that reclassification is required. Rather, the ordinance merely states that there must be an intent to reclassify whenever the land is subdivided. Here, the City decided the ordinance did, in fact, require O-L districts to be reclassified before they could be subdivided into urban building sites. The language of the ordinance is flexible enough to accommodate the City’s interpretation. Therefore, the City did not act arbitrarily or capriciously when it required Roundstone to re-zone the property. Issue 2: Request to rezone Roundstone argues that its request to re-zone the property should have been approved. Ordinarily, the proponent of a request to re-zone property would be required to show, by clear and convincing evidence, either 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 was a public need for rezoning. Here, as the ordinance provides, the reclassification of O-L areas, when there is an imminent subdivision of those areas into urban building sites, is different from the usual mistake or change-in-character re-zoning. Neither party disputes that there was an “imminent subdivision of open land,” as Roundstone had applied for subdivision approval. The only question under the ordinance was whether reclassification was “necessary and desirable.” That phrase confers substantial discretion on the Board to reject or deny an application to reclassify O-L areas. The Board decided that, under the ordinance, the reclassification of the O-L area at issue was not necessary and desirable. A review of the minutes of the Board meeting shows that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary and capricious. Concerned citizens and some Board members stated that the land had been contaminated by a chemical spill some years prior, and this might present health hazards to the future occupants of the subdivision. Some Board members also expressed concerns that the development would cause traffic congestion. Also, surrounding property owners expressed concerns that a large, densely populated cluster of rental houses would have a negative impact on their use and enjoyment of their properties. The Board was authorized to use its common knowledge about the community in making its decision. Roundstone seems to imply that because the Board’s decision blocked the construction of low-income housing, a presumption of an improper motive is raised. However, the Board’s decision is presumptively valid, and Roundstone offers no proof to support its assertion that the Board had such a discriminatory motive. Issue 3: Fair housing act Roundstone argues that the City discriminated against the future tenants of the subdivision on the basis of class and/or race in violation of the Fair Housing Act. Ordinarily, a claim under the Act is litigated in a trial court. An appeal from the Board is not an appropriate forum to assert a claim under the Act. In addition, pursuant to M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6), it is not enough to make a mere assertion and a reference to some authority. Roundstone has waived this issue by failing to present a meaningful argument. Issue 4: Motion to strike brief Roundstone argues that the circuit court should have stricken the City’s appellate brief and entered a judgment on the pleadings because the City did not file its brief with the circuit court within the time frame established by the rules. The record shows that Roundstone filed and served its brief on January 28, 2009. Therefore, the City’s brief was due on or about March 2, 2009. The City did not file its brief by that date. Instead, on March 13, 2009, the City filed a motion for enlargement of time, requesting an extension until April 2, 2009. The circuit court never ruled on the motion. By June 17, 2009, the City still had not filed its brief, so Roundstone filed a motion for a judgment on the pleadings. Before a ruling was obtained on that motion, on June 25, 2009, the City filed another motion for enlargement of time, requesting an extension until July 15, 2009. The circuit court granted the City’s motion by order dated June 29, 2009. The City filed another motion for enlargement of time on July 15, 2009, requesting an extension until July 22, 2009. The circuit court never ruled on the motion. Finally, on July 24, 2009, the City filed its brief. M.R.A.P. 31(d) states that the appellee’s brief may be stricken if untimely filed. Thus, the circuit court properly exercised its discretion. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
