Plaintiffs, father and son, brought a proposal before the Board to develop duplex apartments on their property. After the Board suggested it would approve the general plan, Plaintiff sretained an engineer to put together development and construction plans. These plans were presented before the Board but the Board indicated that it wanted to change the plans so that a connecting street was turned into a cul-de-sac. The City issued a building permit for the first duplex subject to approval based on the cul-de-sac being added. Plaintiffs revised the plans and appeared at a later Board meeting to request that utilities be turned on. It was at this time that Plaintiff learned his project had not been approved and the plans submitted to the Board were missing technical information. Plaintiffs eventually turned the duplex apartment into a single family home after not receiving approval and not conforming with City zoning ordinances.
Plaintiffs later filed suit claiming their due process rights had been violated. The district court found that the father lacked standing and the son did not have a property interest because “the Board’s approval was never noted in the Board’s minutes as required by Mississippi law and thus there was no due process violation.” The son only appeals the denial of his due process claim. The district court determined that because the Board minutes contained only a contingent approval, the son did not have a property interest in the development. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, noting that case law indicates “substantial actions taken by a board must be evidenced by entries on their minutes, and can be evidenced in no other way.”
James v. City of Pontotoc, 2010 WL 454689 (5th Cir. (Miss.) 2/10/2010)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions%5Cunpub%5C09/09-60390.0.wpd.pdf
