117 So. 3d 658
Miss. Ct. App.2013Background
- Moseleys own a home in Pass Christian, in an R-O residential district.
- They sought a special exception under §601.3.2 to rent two rooms and provide one meal.
- The zoning board approved the request, including meal service.
- Neighbor Foster appealed to the Board, which affirmed; circuit court likewise affirmed.
- Foster argues the decision is arbitrary/capricious and constitutes illegal spot zoning.
- The court reviews zoning decisions for arbitrariness and applies de novo review to questions of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authorization of two-room rental | Foster argues the ordinance does not allow two-room rentals in R-O. | Moseleys/Board contend the special exception permits two rooms. | Issue without merit; ordinance permits the exception. |
| Spot zoning | Foster claims the decision is illegal spot zoning. | Board argues no rezoning occurred; action authorized as special use. | Not spot zoning; action within existing ordinance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drews v. City of Hattiesburg, 904 So.2d 138 (Miss. 2005) (burden on challenger to show arbitrariness)
- Consol. Pipe & Supply Co. v. Colter, 735 So.2d 958 (Miss. 1999) (de novo review for questions of law)
- McWaters v. City of Biloxi, 591 So.2d 824 (Miss. 1991) (definition of spot zoning)
- McKibben v. City of Jackson, 193 So.2d 741 (Miss. 1967) (spot zoning contrasted with ordinances)
- Modak-Truran v. Johnson, 18 So.3d 206 (Miss. 2009) (impermissible spot zoning in ordinance changes)
- Duckett v. Mayor & Bd. of Alderman of City of Ocean Springs, 24 So.3d 405 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (rezoning protections required for changes)
- Funderburg v. Pontotoc Elec. Power Ass’n, 6 So.3d 439 (Miss. Ct. App. 2009) (procedural bar on challenging appeal content)