Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 10/01/96 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 95-CA-00711 COA

CLARENCE ADAMS AND REGINA ADAMS APPELLANTS v. JACKSON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. BILL JONES COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: JACKSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: WILLIAM T. REED ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: PEGGY G. MULLINS NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL: PERMIT ZONING TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR THE DEFENDANT

BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., COLEMAN, AND PAYNE, JJ. BRIDGES, P.J., FOR THE COURT: Clarence and Regina Adams were denied a special use permit to operate an automobile repair shop

on their residential property by the Jackson County Planning Commission. This property is zoned for agricultural and residential use only. After several unsuccessful appeals to the planning commission, the Jackson County Board of Supervisors, and to the Jackson County Circuit Court, the Adamses appeal to this Court maintaining that the denial was arbitrary and capricious. They also argue that the board's failure to make specific findings on the record requires this Court to reverse the denial. Finding that the denial was in harmony with applicable case law and the rules of zoning for Jackson County, we affirm the decisions of the lower court, the board of supervisors, and the planning commission. STATEMENT OF THE FACTS Clarence and Regina Adams own approximately twelve (12) acres on the east side of Highway 613, North of Escatawpa, in Jackson County. The Adamses were granted a building permit to construct an automobile garage so that Mr. Adams could work on his race cars. After the building was built, the Adamses' son decided to seek an application for a use permit from the county zoning board so that he could operate an automobile repair shop in the building. The property is zoned for agricultural use only. The permit was unanimously denied, and Adams appealed to the board of supervisors. The board of supervisors remanded the matter to the planning commission and allowed Adams an opportunity to amend his application. The amended permit application limited the request to: (1) Hours of operation: 7:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday; (2) with the addition of a six-foot privacy fence on the south side; (3) a 100-foot setback from the south line; (4) a 100-foot setback from Highway 613; (5) limited to fenced area 200 North and South by 345 feet East and West; (6) subject to review by planning commission in one year; (7) driveway to be in accordance with State permit, two (2) 24 feet culverts and U-shaped driveway.

A second hearing was held on November 16, 1994, and the amended application was again unanimously denied by the planning commission. On appeal, the board of supervisors unanimously upheld the decision of the planning commission. A bill of exceptions was filed and an appeal was perfected to the Circuit Court of Jackson County. The lower court also upheld the planning commission's decision. Finding that the Adamses' complaints are without merit, we affirm the decisions of the lower court, the board of supervisors, and the planning commission. ARGUMENT AND DISCUSSION OF THE LAW The criteria for judicial review of a zoning decision is well established. Courts may not interfere with the lawful prerogatives of zoning authorities unless the decision to grant a special use permit may only be characterized as arbitrary and capricious. Noble v. Scheffler, 529 So. 2d 902, 905 (Miss 1988). This Court will not substitute its judgment for the judgment of the zoning authorities.

Ridgewood Land Co. v. Simmons, 137 So. 2d 532, 537 (Miss. 1962). We will, however, review acts of governing authorities to determine whether such acts are "reasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory, confiscatory or an abuse of discretion." Id. at 536. In this determination, we will look to the record for sufficient evidence to support the findings of the determining board. Board of Aldermen, v. Conerly, 509 So. 2d 877, 884 (Miss. 1987). "Absent a record showing sufficient evidence to support the findings, it is inevitable that reversal will follow." Faircloth v. Lyles, 592 So. 2d 941, 945 (Miss. 1991). "On the other hand, while recognizing the desirability of specific findings by the zoning authority on each considered issue, we will not reverse for a lack of such specificity where a factual basis for the action is disclosed." Id. (emphasis added). Moreover, where the evidence, information, and other relevant factors before the zoning authorities render the question, whether the property should be used as the authorities have permitted, one upon which reasonable minds might disagree, the administrative judgment of the zoning authorities is insulated from judicial interference. Id. Accordingly, our review is limited to whether or not the determination to deny the special use permit was arbitrary or capricious. The Adamses' property is located in an A-1 General Agricultural zoning district. The general description of the district in the Jackson County Zoning Ordinance is "an area primarily for agricultural purposes and low density residential development." Because of the rural nature of this particular type of zone, the ordinance states that the purpose of the zone is to "encourage and protect such uses from urbanization until such is warranted and the appropriate change in district classification is made." The criteria for granting a use permit, as stated in Article II, Section 11 of the Jackson County Zoning Ordinance is that: (1) all procedures with regard to the public hearing must have been met, (2) and the planning commission makes a determination that the said use is in harmony with the principal permitted uses of the zone. Jackson County, Miss. Ordinances art II,

Download Clarence Adams v. Jackson County, Mississippi.pdf

Mississippi Law