Lead Opinion
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
for the Court:
¶ 1. Roundstone Development, LLC, sought to develop an affordable-housing subdivision in the City of Natchez. The land on which it sought to do so had two different zoning classifications: O-L (Open-Land) and R-l (Single-Family Residential). The City’s Planning Commission denied Roundstone’s site plan; it found that the O-L area must be rezoned R-l before the development could be approved. The Mayor and Board of Alderman then denied Roundstone’s rezoning request. The Circuit Court of Adams County and the Court of Appeals both affirmed the City’s decision. We granted certiorari to address: (1) whether the City erred in requiring that the O-L area be rezoned R-1 and (2) whether the City erred in failing to grant Roundstone’s rezoning request. We find that the City’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance to require rezoning from O-L to R-l was not manifestly unreasonable and that it did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the rezoning. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the circuit court and the Court of Appeals.
FACTS & PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2. Roundstone sought to develop a subdivision called Audubon Terrace in Natchez, Mississippi. The development was to consist of sixty-five single-family homes. It was to be financed, in part, through a tax-credit program with the Mississippi Home Corporation (MHC). MHC requires that all homes built with tax credits be high-quality homes. The subdivision provided a lease-purchase plan by which the homes would be leased for fifteen years. At the end of the fifteen-year period, the residents would have the option to buy the homes at a discounted price.
¶ 3. The site where Roundstone sought to build the subdivision was zoned O-L (Open-Land) and R-l (Single-Family Residential). O-L districts are of open character.
¶ 4. Roundstone claims that it received and relied upon three letters prior to purchasing the site. On February 10, 2006,
The [Audubon Terrace] project is zoned R-l (Single Family) Residential District according to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Natchez. The use of the property as single-family development is a permitted use under the sites [sic] R-l zoning classification.
Any new construction must be in accordance with the respective subdivision regulations and building codes of the City....
On December 21, 2006, Dennis E. Story, Director of Planning and Zoning, wrote another letter to Strange. That letter stated:
The referenced property (at the terminus of Lafayette Street in Concorde Addition Subdivision) is zoned “R-l” (Single-Family) Residential District, according to the Official Zoning Map of the City of Natchez. The use of the property for a single-family development is a permitted use under the R-l zoning classification....
And finally, on May 16, 2007, Walter Huston, Land Use Planner, wrote a letter to “Mr. Phillips” of the SunAmerica Housing Fund, LP, which was Roundstone’s lender. It stated similarly:
Please be advised that: (i) the [Audubon Terrace project] is zoned R-l. (Single-Family Residential District) which zoning allows single-family use as a matter of right and is within the city limits of Natchez, Mississippi, (ii) the Project is not located within an overlay zone dis-. trict (such as, for example a PUD or an historical district), and (iii) there are no violations of zoning law, or non-conforming uses and the Project is in compliance with all applicable zoning and subdivision laws, ordinances and regulations (including without limitation, all those establishing or relating to parking requirements). Further, there are no requirements which must be satisfied in order for the Project to fully comply with applicable zoning and subdivision laws, ordinances, regulations and parking requirements....
These three letters, it turned out, were incorrect about the land’s zoning status.
¶ 5. Roundstone completed its Site Plan Review Application on August 14, 2007, and its Subdivision Application on September 9, 2007. Both applications noted that the property was currently zoned R-l and O-L.
¶ 6. The City’s Site Plan Review Committee approved the site plan and subdivi
¶ 7. Roundstone submitted an application to the Planning Commission to rezone the property. The Planning Commission denied the rezoning request, and Round-stone appealed to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen.
¶ 8. The Board considered Roundstone’s zoning request on February 16, 2008. Roundstone’s attorney and a MHC representative spoke at the hearing. Following their presentations, concerned citizens were allowed to speak. A majority of those citizens opposed the development. Ultimately, the Board voted unanimously to affirm the Commission’s decision.
¶ 9. Roundstone appealed the Board’s decision to the Circuit Court of Adams County. The circuit court affirmed the decision of the Board, finding that it “was fairly debatable and supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.”
¶ 10. The Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment in a seven-two decision. Roundstone Dev., LLC v. City of Natchez,
DISCUSSION
I. The City’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance to require rezoning from O-L to R-l was not manifestly unreasonable.
¶ 11. Roundstone argues that the approval of a site plan is ministerial in nature: The plan must be approved if all requirements are met. Roundstone insists that its plan met the City’s zoning requirements because single-family homes are permitted uses in O-L zones; therefore, the City had no grounds to deny approval and require rezoning.
¶ 12. Even if site-plan approval is ministerial in nature, as Roundstone contends, approval is not required unless the site plan complies with the zoning ordinance. The City found that Roundstone’s site plan did not. The City interpreted its ordinance to require that O-L districts be reclassified before being subdivided into urban building sites for single-family homes. And, as the Court of Appeals stated, “[t]he language of the ordinance is ... flexible enough to accommodate the City’s interpretation.” Roundstone Dev., LLC,
¶ 13. On one hand, Roundstone is correct that single-family dwellings are a permitted use in O-L districts. Yet, at the same time, the O-L ordinance also could be interpreted as requiring that those districts be reclassified. It states that:
[O-L] districts are composed mainly of unsubdivided lands that are vacant or in agricultural or forestry uses, with some dwellings and some accessory uses. The regulations are designed to protect the essentially open character of the districts by prohibiting the establishment of scattered uses that are unrelated to any general plan of development and that might inhibit the best future urban utilization of the land. It is intended that land in these districts will be reclassified to its appropriate residential, commercial, and industrial category in accordance with the amendment procedure set forth herein whenever such land is subdivided into urban building sites.
¶ 14. A plausible interpretation of the O-L ordinance is that reclassification could be required prior to the land being subdivided. First, the last sentence states that reclassification is intended whenever an 0-L district is subdivided into an urban building site. Id. It does not state that reclassification is required per se, but it provides that reclassification is intended. Further, the phrase “whenever such land is subdivided” is ambiguous: It could mean that reclassification should occur after the land has been subdivided, as Roundstone asserts, but it also could mean prior to or shortly before any subdivision. Second, the ordinance states that “[t]he regulations [of O-L districts] are designed to protect the essentially open character of the districts by prohibiting the establishment of scattered uses that are unrelated to any general plan of development and that might inhibit the best future urban utilization of the land.” Id. By requiring reclassification before a large project, the City is able to ensure that the proposed use fits within the City’s general plan of development and that it would not inhibit the best future urban utilization of the land.
¶ 15. Local authorities’ construction of zoning ordinances is given great weight unless their construction is manifestly unreasonable. Hall v. City of Ridgeland,
II. The City’s decision to deny Roundstone’s rezoning request was not arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, illegal, or without a substantial basis.
¶ 16. Zoning issues are legislative in nature. Thomas v. Bd. of Supervisors of Panola County,
¶ 17. To reclassify property, the party seeking reclassification must show, by clear and convincing evidence, either “that (1) a mistake in the original zoning occurred; or (2) a change in the character of the neighborhood occurred that justified rezoning, and a public need existed for the rezoning.” Thomas,
¶ 18. Roundstone argues that the Court of Appeals, in addressing this particular issue, added a new step to the traditional zoning analysis. The Court of Appeals noted that the ordinance amendment procedure stated that the ordinance could be amended only under certain conditions. Roundstone Dev., LLC,
¶ 19. We agree with Roundstone that a necessary-and-desirable analysis is not proper. A traditional analysis — whether there was a prior mistake or whether there has been a change in the character of the neighborhood combined with public need — is proper, even under these facts.
¶ 20. There is no contention in this case that there was a mistake in the original zoning. The sole issue, rather, is whether the character of the neighborhood had changed to such an extent as to justify reclassification from O-L to R-l, and whether a public need for rezoning existed.
¶ 21. Here, the Board determined effectively that no change had occurred in the character of the neighborhood and that there was no public need for rezoning. The minutes of the Board meeting showed three concerns that were raised by Board members and local citizens: (1) environmental concerns that the land had been contaminated by a chemical spill in prior years, (2) traffic congestion, and (3) the high density of rental houses in the area, which would have a negative impact on the use and enjoyment of surrounding properties. ■ Roundstone asserts that it countered the first two concerns. It addressed the environmental concerns by hiring a private company to perform environmental tests. Those tests, Roundstone stated, did not raise substantial concerns about the safety of the land, apart from the presence of old railway ties that had been treated with toxic creosote. Additionally, the City’s engineers had performed a traffic study which, according to Roundstone, showed that the development would have no material effect on traffic congestion. As to the third concern, Roundstone contends that worries about the development’s impact on surrounding properties was attributable to class and/or racial animus.
¶ 22. In determining the factual issues before it, the Board was not bound by the results of the environmental test or the traffic study. Rather, it was free “to consider the statements expressed by all the landowners at the hearing, as well as to call upon their own common knowledge and experience in their town.” Bd. of Aldermen of Town of Bay Springs v. Jenkins,
¶ 23. Here, the Board used its common knowledge and familiarity with its municipality in reaching its decision. It heard from many citizens who strongly opposed the development. Furthermore, the traffic study itself did not necessarily dispel concerns about congestion. The study considered two possible ingress/egress scenarios. The first option “would increase traffic on Old Washington Road to an average daily count from 1317 vehicles to 1937 vehicles per day.” That option was not recommended. The second option distributed traffic to multiple streets. Old Washington Road would go from 1,317 to 1,627 vehicles per day, and Kelly Avenue from 1,518 to 1,673; also, traffic on Oriole Terrace would increase by 310 vehicles per
¶ 24. Like the Court of Appeals, we are unpersuaded that racial and/or class animus played a role in the Board’s decision. Roundstone has not offered any proof that the Board’s decision was discriminatory or motivated by class, race, or any other animus.
¶ 25. We find that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, illegal, or without a substantial basis.
CONCLUSION
¶ 26. We find that the City’s interpretation of its zoning ordinance was not manifestly unreasonable and that its decision to deny Roundstone’s rezoning request was not arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, illegal, or without a substantial basis. Therefore, we affirm the judgments of the Circuit Court of Adams County and the Court of Appeals.
¶ 27. AFFIRMED.
Notes
. The Court of Appeals' opinion stated: "Roundstone claims the letters were provided to it and its lenders, but none of the letters were addressed to Roundstone. The record does not show what relationship, if any, Roundstone had with the recipients of the letters.” Roundstone Dev., LLC v. City of Natchez,
We disagree with Roundstone's characterization of the Court of Appeals’ opinion on this point. The Court of Appeals was correct that none of the letters was addressed to Roundstone itself. Moreover, it is clear that Roundstone knew of the property’s partial OL designation when it filed its site-plan review and subdivision-development applications.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting:
¶ 28. I do not agree with the majority’s analysis. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. The Court of Appeals’ dissent correctly focused on the denial of the site-plan application and found it unnecessary to decide the zoning issue. In likening the present case to Vineyard Investments, LLC v. City of Madison,
¶ 29. This Court has declared that consideration of building-permit applications is a ministerial decision that must be approved if all requirements are met. See Thompson v. Mayfield,
¶ 30. Today we are faced with a different issue, because this case concerns site-plan approval. In Hillside Terrace, L.P., v. City of Gulfport,
¶ 31. Meanwhile, in Old Canton Hills Homeowners Association v. Mayor and City Council of the City of Jackson,
¶ 32. The site-plan approvals in Hillside and Old Canton Hills are distinguishable from the present case. Hillside involved an ordinance that was not “Permitted Use by Right,” but instead was “Permitted Upon Approval.” In other words, the ordinance explicitly provided for discretion. But here, the ordinance provides for no such discretion, but rather permits single-family households as matter of right. Similarly, Old Canton Hills involved a particular type of development (planned-unit development) that normally requires that certain conditions are satisfied, unlike the subdivision development that is the subject of the present case.
¶ 33. I would find that, where the applicable ordinance provides no discretion, site-plan and subdivision-plat approvals are ministerial functions akin to approval of building permits. Building permits and site plans are governed by detailed ordinances. Similar to the improper denial of a building permit in Vineyard, the City of Natchez’s refusal to approve Roundstone’s site-plan and subdivision-plat application until the land could be rezoned constituted
¶ 34. The majority finds that this would deprive local authorities of their right to interpret zoning ordinances. While I understand the majority’s concern with preserving local authorities’ discretion, the consequences of the present case are not far-reaching. Today we are faced with a unique situation, in which O-L zones and R-l zones are virtually interchangeable, making it unnecessary for the City to rezone. I also disagree with the majority’s finding that the ordinance on O-L districts was ambiguous. The ordinance states that “[i]t is intended that land in [O-L] districts will be reclassified to its appropriate residential, commercial, and industrial category ... whenever such land is subdivided into urban building sites.” City of Natchez Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations IV(1) (emphasis added). While the majority claims that districts can be reclassified before subdivision, the language in the ordinance makes it clear that rezoning will happen after the land is subdivided. Subdivision into urban building sites is regulated by the “Use by Right” language provided in the City’s zoning chart. The chart specifically allows R-l zones and O-L zones “Use by Right” for single-family dwellings. Therefore, since the land has been subdivided, the City must reclassify the O-L land to R-l.
¶ 35. Furthermore, the zoning issue need not be resolved, because the approval of the site plan and subdivision plat is dispositive of the case. The City’s letter from May 16, 2007, acknowledged that there were no zoning violations. In addition, staff for the Commission specifically stated that Roundstone had satisfied all site-plan recommendations and requirements. Because approval of the site plan does not require rezoning, and because the current zoning permits single-family households as a matter of right, the proposed site plan complies with existing zoning and building ordinances. Thus, no rezoning is necessary.
¶ 36. I would find that, in this case, the site-plan and subdivision-plat approval is a ministerial task. The City of Natchez arbitrarily and capriciously denied the site-plan and subdivision-plat approval without a legally valid reason. Therefore, I would reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and the trial court and remand this case to the circuit court.
DICKINSON, P.J., JOINS THIS OPINION.