The Mississippi Court of Appeals upheld the decision by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen to rezone a parcel of real property from O-L (open land) to B-2 (general business) so that Fat Mama’s Tamales could relocate in a the same historic district where it currently exists following an appropriation of its current business location by the U.S. Department of the Interior as one of the parcels needed for use as a national park.  

The owner of Fat Mama’s Tamales, a popular tourist attraction, applied to the Metropolitan Planning Commission for a rezoning from O-L to B-2.  Following a public hearing, the request was denied, but the Commission, on its own motion, voted to rezone the property from O-L to B-1 (neighborhood business).  Residents opposed to the rezoning, and the applicant, both appealed this rezoning to the Mayor and the Board of Alderman. Following a public hearing, the Mayor and the Board voted to overturn the decisions of Planning Commission and granted the rezoning from O-L to B-2.  In a footnote, the Court noted that the O-L designation was intended by the City as a stop-gap measure to provide parameters for seldom used properties until a final land-use determination was made. At the hearing before the Mayor and Board, the City Planner stated that the mixed-use area in question was moving towards increased business with the expansion of the downtown/waterfront areas.  

The Court of Appeals noted that changes in zoning are permissible and to be expected, but such changes must be made after careful consideration and that the legal standard for amendment of a zoning plan is fairly stringent.  In Mississippi, to support a zoning amendment, the party so seeking must show by clear and convincing evidence that “either (1) there was a mistake in the original zoning, or (2) that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify reclassification, and there was a public need for rezoning.” Citing, Board of Aldermen v. Conerly, 509 So. 2d 877 (Miss. 1987).  Here the petitioner relied on the second prong, and the Court, following caselaw, said that they would not reverse a rezoning determination for lack of specificity where a factual basis for the action is disclosed.    

In determining that the decision of the Mayor and Board was neither arbitrary nor capricious and that it was supported by substantial evidence, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision upholding the rezoning. Further, the Court noted that while the receipt of tax revenues may not be the sole reason for finding a public need for a rezoning, it is a legitimate factor that the Mayor and the Board may consider. The Court held that the decision did not constitute illegal spot zoning because evidence showed that the area was predominantly zoned B-2, the area was already zoned mixed-use and they Court did not agree that the rezoning was designed to “favor” one person. Lastly, the Court found that the transcript revealed that the Mayor and the Board made specific findings of fact in the motion to re-zone the property based upon the presentation of the City Planner.   

Adams v. Mayor and Board of Alderman of the City of Natchez, 2007 WL 2597931 (Miss. App. 9/11/07).