Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/03/2016

Home

January 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 2 Zoning Bulletin to a city street, except via an easement across his father's driveway. Under the City's Unified Development Code (the "Code), all buildings and structures were required to have "direct access to a public (dedicated) street" in order to ensure "safe and convenient access for servicing, fire protection, and required off-street parking." (Code § 1.36.02). Johnson applied for and was denied a special exemption to permit construction of his proposed home. Johnson later purchased strips of land along the street to provide his lot with street access, and again asked the City for a special exemption to the ordinance. The City's Zoning Commission (the "Commission") then found that Johnson's lot was now "technically" compliant with the direct -access requirement, but also found that it still "skirted the `intent' of the ordinance." The Commission found that Johnson's lot still did not give suf- ficient access for fire trucks to get to Johnson's proposed home. Moreover, it found that since the strips of land that would provide street access were private, the City could not keep Johnson from blocking them with parked cars, preventing access to his house. The City again denied Johnson's request for a special exemption to build a "house behind a house." Johnson appealed to the City's Board of Alderman (the "Board"). The Board followed the Commission's recommendation and denied Johnson's appeal. Ten months later, in May 2009, Johnson sued the City, the Board, and the Commission (hereinafter, collectively, the "City"). Johnson alleged that his 14th Amendment rights to substantive due process of law and equal protection under the law were violated. More specifically, he alleged that his equal protection rights were violated since his special exemption request was denied because he was African American, while nine other Caucasians had been allowed to build a "house behind a house" in the City. He also al- leged that his substantive due process rights were violated because his lot conformed to the ordinance's requirements and the City deprived him of the use and enjoyment of his property. Finding no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the circuit court issued summary judgment in favor of the City. Johnson appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Mississippi held that the City's denial of Johnson's special exemption request to permit construction of his proposed home on a noncompliant lot did not violate his equal protection rights or his substantive due process rights. With regard to the equal protection claim, the court explained that under the Fourteenth Amendment: "No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (U.S. Const. amend XIV.) The court further explained that a violation of that clause "occurs only when, [among other things], the governmental action in question classifies 8 © 2016 Thomson Reuters