Elizabeth Ann Carroll and Thomas B. Butchart v. City of Canton, Mississippi;, 296 So.3d 751

Elizabeth Carroll and Thomas Butchart co-own a 5.5‑acre parcel in Canton used as an RV park under a special‑use/conditional permit first granted in 2002; the area was later rezoned C‑3 (commercial).
The park operated for years and produced tax revenue; homeowners across the street objected, asserting the park was temporary and harms residential values.
In 2015 the Board of Aldermen refused to renew the special use and granted a one‑year moratorium to wind down; Carroll/Butchart sought review and the parties agreed to the one‑year delay.
After the moratorium expired, Butchart applied in 2016 for another temporary renewal; the Planning Commission recommended two years but the Board ultimately voted to allow only a 90‑day extension and otherwise denied the application.
Carroll and Butchart appealed to the Madison County Circuit Court; the court granted a supersedeas stay pending appeal, later found the Board’s denial supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious, and affirmed the Board. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction to hear appeal	Carroll/Butchart: circuit court properly allowed amendments to the bill of exceptions; appeal record is adequate	City: bill of exceptions contains materials beyond what was before the Board and so deprives court of jurisdiction	Court: jurisdiction exists; defective or overinclusive bill may affect merits but does not oust jurisdiction
Mootness	Carroll/Butchart: circuit court’s 2016 supersedeas stay prevented mootness	City: any reversal would be academic because a temporary renewal would have expired in July 2018	Court: not moot — supersedeas stay preserved practical relief; appeal remains live
Whether Board’s denial was arbitrary/capricious or lacked substantial evidence	Carroll/Butchart: evidence of maintenance, tax revenue, and lack of adverse impact made denial arbitrary	City: Board reasonably relied on prior order, neighborhood objections, safety/crime concerns, and noncompliance with the 2015 order	Court: Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and not arbitrary or capricious; deference to a decision that is at least "fairly debatable"
Grandfathering / pre‑existing use argument	Carroll/Butchart: earlier conditional use should be "grandfathered" under the new code	City: argued procedural defects and the Board’s authority to deny	Held: Court declined to address on merits — issue was only cursorily argued and is procedurally barred on appeal

Miss. Sierra Club, Inc. v. Miss. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 819 So. 2d 515 (Miss. 2002) (standard of review for agency decisions)
City of Jackson v. Allen, 242 So. 3d 8 (Miss. 2018) (limits of bill‑of‑exceptions defects and jurisdictional analysis)
Jones v. City of Canton, 278 So. 3d 1129 (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (review standard for municipal decisions)
Como Steak House, Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Panola Cty., 200 So. 3d 417 (Miss. 2016) (special‑use adjudicative nature; review criteria)
Hearne v. City of Brookhaven, 822 So. 2d 999 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002) (definition of substantial evidence for land‑use appeals)
Saunders v. City of Jackson, 511 So. 2d 902 (Miss. 1987) ("fairly debatable" standard for zoning decisions)
Barrett v. City of Gulfport, 196 So. 3d 905 (Miss. 2016) (mootness doctrine for land‑use appeals)