Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/09/2015

Home

June 10, 2015 I Volume 9 1 Issue 11 Zoning Bulletin the neighborhood had changed and that a public needed existed to war- rant a rezoning. The Background/Facts: In January 2012, Randy Wrigley submitted a request to the Jackson County Planning Department ("JCPD") seeking a change in zoning from A-1, Agricultural Residential District, to A-3, Agricultural -Residential District (Smaller -Lot Development) for a parcel of property (the "Property") owned by Breland Homes LLC ("Breland Homes"). The Property contained approximately 163.28 acres and was located in Vancleave, Mississippi. Breland Homes sought to convert the Property into a subdivision. The JCPD denied Wrigley's request. On a second motion to change the zoning from A-1 to A-2, Agricultural -Residential (Large -Lot Development), the JCPD also denied the request. Wrigley appealed the JCPD's decision to the Jackson County Board of Supervisors (the "Board"). Wrigley's appeal requested that the Board consider rezoning the Property from A-1 to A-2. The Board voted to ap- prove the zoning request. David and Mary Ann Harris (the "Harrises") owned property adjacent to the Breland Homes Property. The Harrises appealed the Board's ap- proval of the rezoning of the Property to the county circuit court. The court reversed the Board's decision, finding that it was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. Wrigley appealed. DECISION: Judgment of Circuit Court affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Mississippi agreed with the circuit court that Wrigley had failed to support his rezoning application with sufficient evidence. The court explained that for an applicant's request for rezoning to be granted, the applicant must prove by "clear and convincing evidence" either: "(1) . . . there was a mistake in the original zoning;" or "(2) the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify rezoning and that public need exists for rezoning." In order to show the necessary proof of evidence, further explained the court, the applicant must support the rezoning with, at a minimum: "a map showing the cir- cumstances of the area, the changes in the neighborhood, statistics show- ing a public need, and such further matters of proof so that a rational, informed judgment may be formed as to what the governing board considered." Here, Wrigley had not argued a mistake in the original zoning. Therefore, in order to succeed on his application, he had to show suf- ficient evidence that the rezoning request was supported by a change in the character of the neighborhood and by a public need. The Board had found that Wrigley had met that burden of proof, but the court found that "Wrigley's evidence consisted of general statements and nothing 10 © 2015 Thomson Reuters