Bridge v. Mayor & Bd. of Alderman of the City of Oxford
| Docket Number: | 2007-CA-00601-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-CA-00601-SCT ; 2007-CA-00601-SCT ; 2007-CA-00601-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-11-2008 Opinion Author: EASLEY, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Rezoning - Administrative mistake - Comprehensive plan Judge(s) Concurring: WALLER AND DIAZ, P.JJ., CARLSON AND RANDOLPH, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): LAMAR, J. Dissenting Author : SMITH, C.J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : DICKINSON, J. Concurs in Result Only: GRAVES, J. Procedural History: Municipal Boundaries and Annexation Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-19-2007 Appealed from: Lafayette County Circuit Court Judge: Robert Elliott Disposition: The trial court affirmed the decision of the City of Oxford Board of Aldermen (the City) to rezone a portion of the Rice Street neighborhood from RB (multi-family residential) property to R1A (single-family residential) property. Case Number: L05-428 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | MICHAEL L. BRIDGE |
JERRY L. MILLS |
|
|
| Appellee: | MAYOR AND BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI, LUCY LYNN ROBINSON, MARY SUE ROBINSON AND RALPH COLEMAN | PAUL BOWIE WATKINS, JR., POPE SHANNON MALLETTE, JOYCE MARIE FREELAND, THOMAS HENRY FREELAND, IV | ||
| Intervenor: | Lucy Lynn Robinson, Mary Sue Robinson, and Ralph Coleman | Joyce Freeland; T.H. Freeland, IV | ||
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 - Administrative mistake - Comprehensive plan |
| Summary of the Facts: | In 2004, the City of Oxford adopted its comprehensive plan. Under the plan the north side of Price Street was zoned RB. In May 2005, Lucy Robinson and others filed a petition with the Oxford Planning Commission requesting a zoning amendment to have a portion of Price Street rezoned from RB (multi-family residential) to R1A (single-family residential). The thrust of the petition was that Price Street had remained a traditional single-family residential neighborhood and an error had been made by designating the area RB (multifamily residential) rather than R1A (single-family residential). The matter was heard before the Planning Commission in July, 2005 and died for a lack of a motion. After the petition died at the July 2005 hearing, the petitioners appealed to the Board of Aldermen. The Board approved the rezoning of the property from RB (multi-family residence) to R1A (single-family residence). Following this decision, Michael Bridge, an owner of RB property subject to the rezoning, appealed to the circuit court. The trial court granted leave for Lucy Robinson, Mary Sue Robinson, and Ralph Coleman to intervene in the suit. The court affirmed the Board’s rezoning decision, and Bridge appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Bridge argues that the trial court erred in finding that rezoning was justifiable on the grounds of mistake and a change in character of the neighborhood. Bridge argues that if a mistake was made by the Board, it was either because Board members did not know what they were voting for or they changed their minds about how they should vote. Bridge claims that neither of these two reasons justifies rezoning. A mistake within the meaning of the law is not a mistake of judgment, but, rather, a clerical or administrative mistake. A number of Board members stated that the zoning was a mistake. The testimony of the Board members shows that the Board made an administrative mistake by not including all of the Price Street neighborhood in the rezoning. The Board had an objective in the comprehensive plan and merely overlooked the portion of Price Street at issue. Thus, the trial court did not err by finding that the issue of mistake was fairly debatable. Bridge argues that the zoning ordinance should be in compliance with the comprehensive plan at the time the zoning ordinance is passed. He argues that the City is rewriting the ordinance to comply with only one of the four elements of the comprehensive plan and that therefore the trial court erred by finding that the rezoning was in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The City admitted that the comprehensive plan was not amended to comply with the zoning change, however, the City maintained that it would amend the comprehensive plan if the zoning change was permitted. The zoning statutes do not specify that a future land-use map, which is part of a comprehensive plan, must be amended before a zoning ordinance amendment. The statutes contemplate necessary amendments to comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. The lots in the Price Street neighborhood at issue are all part of the “Neighborhood Conservation Zone” as specified in the City’s 2004 comprehensive plan. Thus, the rezoning is in keeping with the comprehensive plan, or at the very least, the matter is fairly debatable. Thus, the trial court did not err by finding that the rezoning is compatible with the comprehensive plan. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
