Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 10/15/96 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 94-CA-00822 COA

JOHN HUDSON, D/B/A/ GULF COAST GATOR RANCH APPELLANT 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 APPELLANT: WILLIAM T. REED ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: PEGGY G. MULLINS NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL: LAND USE TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED BOARD OF SUPERVISORS' DENIAL OF THE REQUESTED SPECIAL EXCEPTION AND USE PERMIT

BEFORE BRIDGES, P.J., DIAZ, AND SOUTHWICK, JJ.

SOUTHWICK, J., FOR THE COURT: John Hudson appeals the denial of his application for a special exception and use permit. He raises issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence and the absence of specific findings of fact by the Jackson County Board of Supervisors and the circuit court regarding the denial of his use permit. We affirm. FACTS John Hudson, doing business as Gulf Coast Gator Ranch, owns and operates an alligator farm located in an A-1 general agricultural zone. Hudson's property is bordered to the south and to the west by low wetlands. The nearest occupied property to the east is an auto salvage yard, and Highway 90 runs near the north border. At the time Hudson made his application, the Fish and Wildlife Service was in the process of acquiring a wildlife refuge in the neighboring area. Hudson applied to the Jackson County planning commission for a special exception to permit retail sales of aquatic products and novelties on his property and to allow him to operate a tourist attraction including walking, air boat, and canoe tours of the farm. At the planning commission hearing, members of the community expressed their concerns about Hudson's request. Cited as potential adverse impacts of Hudson's proposal were possible drainage problems, noise from air boats and tourists, traffic and parking problems, and harm to the environment. The Commission denied Hudson's application. After conducting a de novo hearing, the Jackson County Board of Supervisors affirmed the commission. Hudson appealed the board's decision to the Jackson County Circuit Court. Two months after his application for a special exception, Hudson applied to the planning commission for a use permit to allow "retail sales of gator products and novelties" on his property. The commission held another hearing and recommended that the board grant the permit. The commission's decision was appealed to the board of supervisors. After a hearing on the matter, the board voted not to accept the commission's recommendation and denied the use permit. Hudson appealed to the circuit court. The court consolidated Hudson's appeal on the special exception with his appeal on the use permit and affirmed both board decisions. DISCUSSION Under the Jackson County zoning ordinance, alligator farming is a form of aquaculture, which is a permitted use in an A-1 zoning district. Thus, the use of Hudson's property as an alligator farm is not at issue. Although much of the testimony at the hearings involved the public's concern about the presence of Hudson's alligators in the community, such considerations were irrelevant then, and remain irrelevant now. At issue in this appeal is whether the circuit court had legally cognizable grounds to interfere with the board of supervisors' decision to deny Hudson's requests for a special exception and a use permit. To decide this issue, we examine the zone's purpose, the criteria to obtain a variance, and the evidence presented regarding the legitimate zoning concerns. As stated in the zoning ordinance, the A-1 district is "an area primarily for agricultural purposes and low density residential development." According to the ordinance, the district's purpose is "to encourage and protect such uses from urbanization until such is warranted and the appropriate change in district classification is made." Our task is to consider the evidence to determine whether Hudson's application met the criteria for either a special exception or a use permit in light of this stated purpose.

Under the county's zoning ordinance, the planning commission may not recommend a special exception to the board of supervisors unless the following criteria have been met: 1) All procedures and provisions . . . for public hearing procedures have been met, and:

2) The planning commission determines: (1) that a literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other residents of the district in which the property is located, and that literal interpretation of this ordinance would work an unnecessary hardship upon the applicant; (2) that the requested exception will be in harmony with the purpose and intent of this ordinance and will not be injurious to the neighborhood or the general welfare; and

3) That the special circumstances are not the result of actions of the applicant; and

4) That the existence of a nonconforming use of the neighboring land, buildings, or structures in the same district or of permitted or nonconforming uses in other districts shall not constitute a reason for the required exception. Likewise, the county's zoning ordinance provides: Recommendations for a Use Permit shall not be made to the Board of Supervisors by the Planning Commission unless and until: 1) All procedures and provisions . . . for public hearing procedures have been met, and;

2) The Planning Commission determines that said use is in harmony with the Principal Permitted Uses of the Zone.

Jackson County, Miss., Ordinances Art. 7,

Download John Hudson v. Jackson County, Mississippi.pdf

Mississippi Law