Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/06/2011

Home

42 November 25, 2010 Volume 41 No. 22 Zoning Bulletin Spot Zoning —City approves zoning variance, allowing company to expand its mining operations Neighbors appeal, arguing grant of variance constitutes impermissible spot zoning Citation: Harrison v. Mayor dr Bd. of Alderman of City of Rntvcville 2010 WL 4188264 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) MISSISSIPPI (10/26 /10) —This case addressed the issue of whether a zon- ing variance granted to an applicant constituted impermissible spot zoning. The Background/Facts: Memphis Stone and Gravel Company ( "Mem- phis Stone ") operated a sand and gravel mine and wash plant in the city. Memphis Stone sought to expand its mining operation to an adjacent 65 -acre property. Eighteen acres of that adjacent property were located in the city. Those eighteen acres were located in an R -1 district (single - family residential) and a C -2 district (community business). Neither of those districts allowed mining or quarrying operations as a permitted or conditional use. Accordingly, in April 2008, Memphis Stone filed a zon- ing variance request with the city. The Planning Commission voted to ap- prove the variance request. The Mayor and Board of Alderman ultimately granted the variance with conditions. Neighboring property owners, Scott and Mona Harrison (the "Harri- sons"), appealed to circuit court the decision to grant the variance. They argued that the variance constituted impermissible spot zoning. Disagreeing with the Harrisons, the circuit court upheld the decision to grant the variance. The Harrisons appealed. The Court's Decision: Judgment of circuit court reversed and rendered. The Court of Appeals of Mississippi held that the variance, which was granted to Memphis Stone, constituted impermissible spot zoning. In so holding, the court explained that "spot zoning" occurred when 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 there- with." Whether a particular spot zoning is found to be impermissible and held void depends, said the court, on the circumstances of the case Still, "spot zoning" is always found to be impermissible when it is "designed `to favor' someone " — unless there is a public need for the rezoning. Here the court concluded that the granting of the variance to Mem- phis Stone constituted impermissible spot zoning because: it clearly fa- vored Memphis Stone to the exclusion of other parties; and there was 6 _ © 2010 Thomson Reuters