MS Supreme Court Finds Evidence of Illegal Spot Zoning

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

The City of Ridgeland adopted an amendment to the zoning ordinance, which created as a permitted use a Large Master Planned Commercial Development (“LMPCD”). LMPCD allowed uses previously prohibited in C–2 districts, including the potential location of a Costco Wholesale. Appellants, residents of the City who lived in nearby neighborhoods, appealed the City’s decision, arguing that the amendments constituted illegal rezoning and/or spot zoning. the circuit court affirmed the zoning amendments. Because the applicant’s site plan needed to be approved by the City before any land may be defined as a LMPCD, the trial court found that no rezoning had occurred.

On appeal, the Appellants claimed the City’s decision to amend the zoning ordinance materially altered the uses previously allowed in C–2 districts, and could therefore only be valid upon a showing of substantial change in neighborhood character. The City argued that the amendments were purely textual, and that the addition of a Costco with a service station and drive-through restaurants did not effectively rezone the proposed area. The court found that without the amendments, no opportunity existed to submit a site plan for the additional uses the Costco development required; following the amendments, however, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen had complete authority over whether or not to allow any or all of those sites to become LMPCDs. since the proposed site was in close proximity to residential neighborhoods, allowing the site effectively to be rezoned to a C–3 district was in direct conflict with the goal of zoning regulations listed in Section 17–1–9 – to lessen street congestion and prevent overcrowding of land. Moreover, almost immediately after adopting a new comprehensive zoning ordinance and map in 2014, the City sought to change the zoning of the proposed Costco site to allow numerous prohibited uses. because those additional uses effectively transformed the proposed Costco site from a C–2 district to a C–3 district, the court found that the City illegally rezoned the property at issue.

The Appellants next contended that the zoning amendments constituted spot-zoning. Here, the proposed amendments were created and were focused solely on Costco and its activities. City officials worked closely together with Costco representatives to shape the ordinance to fit Costco’s needs. Furthermore, only after Costco choose the site at issue did the City attempt to rezone the proposed location and add C–3 uses into a C–2 zone. Since, the City engaged in illegal spot-zoning by singling out a parcel of land for special and privileged treatment, the court found that the zoning amendments are arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence.

The City last argued that the Appellants lacked standing to challenge the amendment, and failed to prove that any of the additional convenience uses were inconvenient to them personally in a way not common to the public generally. Here, the Appellants were property owners in the City of Ridgeland, whose properties are located near the proposed Costco site. The Appellants argued that the Costco development would adversely impact them as well as other Ridgeland residents since the Costco development was not a minor variance and would greatly increase traffic, as well as change the aesthetics of the area. Accordingly, the court held that the Appellants had standing to appeal the zoning amendments. As such, the court reversed the decision of the circuit court and entered judgment for the Appellants.

Beard v City of Ridgeland, 2018 WL869589 (MS 4/19/2018)