Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/12/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin June 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 11 MISSISSIPPI (04/19/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether a city's amendment of a zoning ordinance to allow for certain previously prohibited uses constituted an illegal zoning and/or impermissible "spot zoning." The Background/Facts: In February 2014, the City of Ridgeland (the "City") adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance and Map. Soon thereaf- ter, the City's Director of Community Development pursued the siting of a Costco in the City, offering to Costco six potential sites to consider. Ultimately, Costco chose its preferred site (the "Site"). Under the 2014 Zoning Ordinance, the Site was zoned C-2. C-2 districts did not permit —as permitted or conditional uses —gas stations, fast-food drive -through restaurants, drive - through pharmacies, banks, drive -through automatic teller machines ("ATMs"), food -product carry -out or delivery stores, or laundry and dry- cleaning pickup stations. After working closely with Costco representatives on the language, the City drafted and then adopted, in June 2015, a zoning amendment that created as a permitted use in C-2 districts a "Large Master Planned Commercial Development" ("LMPCD"). The zoning amendment al- lowed uses previously prohibited in C-2 districts, including service stations, banks, drive -through ATMs, food product and carry -out and delivery stores, laundry and dry-cleaning pickup, fast-food drive -through restaurants, and drive -through pharmacies. Area residents (the "Residents") challenged the June 2015 zoning ordinance amendment as invalid for, among other things, failure by the City to provide proper notice before its adoption. The City then repealed the zoning amend- ments, noticed a public hearing, and in April 2016, adopted a new amended zoning ordinance (of substantially similar language to the June 2015 amendment). The Residents challenged the adoption of the April 2016 amended zoning ordinance. They argued that the amendment constituted illegal rezoning or spot -zoning. The City argued that the zoning change was "a mere textual amendment." The circuit court affirmed the City's April 2016 zoning amendment The Residents appealed, arguing again that the April 2016 zoning amend- ment constituted illegal rezoning and/or impermissible spot -zoning. DECISION: Judgment of Circuit Court reversed, and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Mississippi agreed with the Residents, concluding that the April 2016 zoning amendment constituted both illegal rezoning and impermissible spot -zoning. In arguing that the zoning amendment was illegal rezoning, the Residents had pointed to a City zoning ordinance, which provided criteria for rezoning. That ordinance allowed re -zoning only if: (1) there was a mistake in the origi- nal zoning; or (2) "the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify reclassification, and that there is a public need for re- zoning." No mistake had been claimed, and the Residents contended that in the short time between the 2014 adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Map and the 2016 zoning amendment, there had been no substantial change in the neighborhood character. The appellate court agreed. It held that "the City il- © 2018 Thomson Reuters 3