Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/2009

Home

;: ii 1,0 li.../ I I I I I o I I 1 I I ! I j t ..----- (U Zoning Bulletin September 25,20091 Volume 31 No. 18 and breakfast inn. The city's zoning administrator disagreed. He cau- tioned the Inn that serving meals to the public violated its use permit. Eventually, the Inn proposed two amendments to the city's zoning ordinance. The first amendment created a new zoning definition titled "Bed and Breakfast Inn Class B with Restaurant." The amendment de- fined class B bed and breakfasts with restaurants as a place where meals could be served to the general public. The second amendment governed the use permits associated. with the new "Bed and Breakfast Class B with Restaurants." That amendment provided that any existing Class B Bed and Breakfast Inn could, as of right, operate a restaurant in con- junction with its bed and breakfast inn. The Fairview Inn was the only Class B bed and breakfast in the city. Thus, the second amendment ef- fectively exempted the Inn from having to obta.in a new use permit in order to operate a restaurant. Neighbors (the "Neighbors") of the Inn opposed the proposed amendments. They argued that the proposed amendments would ef- fectively rezone the Inn from residential to commercial. Further, they maintained that a restaurant: would increase traffic; was not com- patible with the residential character of the neighborhood; would be . damaging to the surrounding property owners; would be hazardous to the children living in the area; and was not in harmony with the City's comprehensive plan. Eventually, despite a negative recommendation from the city's Planning Board, the City Council adopted the proposed amendments. The Neighbors appealed to circuit court. Among other things, they maintained that the City Council's decision to adopt the zoning amendments resulted in illegal "spot zoning." The City insisted that the amendments were "pure 'text amend- ments'" and not a rezoning. The circuit court judge agreed with the city. He reasoned that "[t] he text amendments d[id] not make any changes to the [c]ity's zoning map," and that the area would maintain is residential zoning classifi- cation. The amendments, he found, simply modified a use definition. The Neighbors again appealed. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. The Supreme Court. of Mississippi held that the zoning amend- ments constituted impermissible spot zoning because they "effectively rezoned residential property for the sole favor and benefit of the Fair- view Inn." The court explained that "spot zoning"-where an amendment reclassifies a tract or lot for a use prohibited by the original zoning ordinance-is impermissible when it is "primarily for the private in- @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 3 73