Arlin George Hatfield, III v. Madison County Board of Supervisors
235 So. 3d 18
| Miss. | 2017Background
- Hatfield purchased a lot in Deer Haven (R-1 Residential Estate zoning) and kept chickens, guineafowl, and ducks on the property.
- Deer Haven Owners Association sued under subdivision covenants; county Planning & Zoning Administrator Scott Weeks inspected and notified Hatfield (letters dated March and April 2015) that keeping poultry violated Madison County Zoning Ordinance Section 601 (R-1 permitted uses).
- Weeks and the County Attorney recommended enforcement; on June 1, 2015 the Madison County Board of Supervisors unanimously found Hatfield in violation and denied permission to continue keeping fowl, citing that R-1 does not list fowl as a permitted or conditional use.
- Hatfield appealed to the Madison County Circuit Court arguing the Board’s decision was arbitrary, lacked substantial evidence, and Section 601 was unconstitutionally vague; the circuit court affirmed, finding the Board’s decision ‘‘fairly debatable’’ and supported by substantial evidence.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed: it gave deference to the Board’s interpretation (not manifestly unreasonable), held the Ordinance provided sufficient notice that fowl-raising is not permitted in R-1, and rejected Hatfield’s vagueness challenge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Board’s finding that keeping/raising fowl is not permitted in R-1 was arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence | Hatfield: Board’s interpretation was arbitrary, capricious, and not supported by substantial evidence; administrator’s deposition (in separate suit) showed uncertainty | Board: R-1 listing of permitted uses excludes fowl (unlike A-1), prior Board decisions consistently interpreted R-1 to exclude fowl, and minutes adopt Administrator/County Attorney findings | Court: Affirmed—Board’s decision not arbitrary/capricious, supported by substantial evidence, and at minimum fairly debatable |
| Whether Section 601 is unconstitutionally vague | Hatfield: ‘‘livestock’’/"grazing livestock" undefined; examples and "etc." leave open that fowl could be included, so notice insufficient | Board: Examples in Section 601 (horses, cattle, sheep, goats, mules, etc.) indicate large, four-legged grazing animals; Article V expressly permits fowl in A-1 but R-1 omits them, giving clear notice | Court: Ordinance sufficiently clear; not unconstitutionally vague; omission of fowl from R-1 and presence in A-1 gives adequate notice |
| Standard of review for a local board’s interpretation of zoning ordinances | Hatfield (and concurring justice in part): some arguments for de novo review of ordinance interpretation | Board: Courts should give great weight/deference to local authorities’ construction unless manifestly unreasonable | Majority: Continue to apply substantial deference to local boards’ interpretations (reverse only if manifestly unreasonable); concurrence argued to adopt de novo review but agreed with result |
| Whether prior Board treatment and ordinance context affect interpretation | Hatfield: relied on alleged inconsistent or uncertain administrative statements | Board: Pointed to prior consistent Board decision (Nancy Field) and Ordinance structure (A-1 v. R-1 differences) | Court: Considered prior treatment and ordinance read in pari materia; found Board’s consistent past interpretations persuasive |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. City of Ridgeland, 37 So.3d 25 (Miss. 2010) (gives weight to local authorities’ construction of zoning ordinances)
- Drews v. City of Hattiesburg, 904 So.2d 138 (Miss. 2005) (court will not reverse zoning decisions that are ‘‘fairly debatable’’)
- Columbus & Greenville Ry. Co. v. Scales, 578 So.2d 275 (Miss. 1991) (courts should give great weight to local construction of ordinances unless manifestly unreasonable)
- Mayor & Bd. of Aldermen, City of Clinton v. Welch, 888 So.2d 416 (Miss. 2004) (example of vagueness/equitable estoppel issues when municipal interpretation changed and caused confusion)
- Nichols v. City of Gulfport, 589 So.2d 1280 (Miss. 1991) (ordinance void for vagueness where standards were purely subjective)
- Fondren N. Renaissance v. Mayor & City Council of Jackson, 749 So.2d 974 (Miss. 1999) (reiterates ‘‘fairly debatable’’ standard for zoning decisions)