### Th e Cityof O xfo rd an d th e interv eno rs collectiv ely w ill be citedas “the C ity.” 1 I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CA- 0 0 6 0 1 - S CT M ICHA EL L . BR I

DGE
v. MAY OR A ND B OA R D O F

A L DER MEN

OF T HE CIT Y OF

OX FORD , M

I S S I S S I P P I , L UC Y L YNN RO BI NSO N, M

ARY SUE RO BI

NSO N A ND RALPH COLEM AN
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 19/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. RO BERT W I LLI AM ELLI OTT CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: LAF AYETT E COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT J ERRY L. M I LLS ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LE ES : P AUL BOW I E W ATKI NS, J R. POPE S HA NN ON M ALLETTE J OYC E M AR I E F RE E L AND T H O M A S H E N R Y F R E E L A N D , IV NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - REA L PROPERTY D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 09/ 11/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D:

EN BA NC. EAS LEY, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T hi s c as e r equi r es thi s Courtt o de t erm i ne w hetherthe tr i al c our te rr ed by af f i r m i ng the dec i s i on of

the C i ty of

O xf or d B oar d of

A l derm en ( the C i ty) t o r ezone a por t i on of t he R ice S tre e t n e ig h b o rh o o d fr o m R B (m u lti -fa m ily re sid e n tial) p ro p e rty to R 1 A (sin g le- fa m ily
r es i dent i al ) pr operty. 1

### 2

¶2. I n M ay 2005, a gr oup of i ndi vi dual s , i ncl udi ng Lucy Robi ns on and other s , appl i ed f or
a n a m e n d m e n t to th e z o n in g m a p o f th e C ity o f O x fo rd . T h e se p e tit io n e rs in c lu d e d p ro p e rty
ow ner s af

f ect ed by the r ezoni ng as w el l as pr operty ow ner s adj ace ntt o the pr operty ati s s ue. A publ i c hear i ng f

orthe pet i t i on w as c onduct ed bef or e the O xf

or d Pl ann i ng C om m i s s i on. M i chae l L
. B r i dge, an ow nerof RB pr operty s ubj ectt o the r ezoni ng, cont es t ed the pet i t i on f oran amendm entt o t he zoni ng m ap. ¶3. T he tr i al court ’ s or der gave s om e backgr ound hi s t ory of the nei ghborhood’ s zoni ng. T he tr i al courthel d: In 2 0 0 4 , the C ity a d o p ted its c o m p re h e n siv e p lan . U n d e r th e p lan th e n o rth side o f P ri ce S tr ee t w as z o n ed R B
. In M ay , 2 0 0 5 , L u cy R o b inso n an d o thers f i l ed a pe t i t i on w i t h the O xf or d Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on r eques t i ng a zoni ng a m e n d m e n t to h a v e a p o rtio n o f P ric e S tre e t re z o n e d fro m R B (m u lti -fa m ily r es i dent i al ) t o R 1A ( s i ngl e[
- ] f ami l y r es i dent i al )
. The thrus tof the pet i t i on w as thatP ri ce Str eethad r emai ned a tr adi t i onal s i ngl e- f ami l y r es i dent i al n e ig h b o rh o o d an d an err o r h a d b e e n m a d e b y d e sig n a tin g th e a re a R B (m u lti
f ami l y r es i dent i a l ) r a the rthan R 1A ( s i ngl e- f ami l y r es i dent i al )
. T he mat t erw as h ea rd b efo re th e P lann ing C o m m issi o n in Ju ly, 20 0 5 a n d d ied for a lack o f a m ot i on. ¶4
. A ft er the p eti ti o n d ied at the Ju ly 2 0 0 5 h ea ri n g , the p eti ti o n ers ap p ea led to the B o ard of A l derm en. O n O ct ober4, 2005, af t ernum er ous m eet i ngs , the B oar d appr oved the
rez o n ing o f th e p rop erty fro m R B (m u lt i- fam il y reside n ce ) t o R 1 A (si n g le-fam il y reside n ce ). Fol l ow i ng thi s deci s i on, B r i dge appe al ed t o the C i r cui tC our tof L af ayett e C ounty. ¶5. T he tr i al c our tgr ant ed l eave f orLucy Lynn R obi ns on, M ary Sue R obi ns on, and R al ph C ol eman t o i nt ervene i n the s ui t . T he tr i al c our tc onduct ed a hear i ng on February 27, 2007,

### 3

a n d a ffirm e d th e B o a rd ’s r e z o n in g d e c isio n o n M a rc h 1 9 , 2 0 0 7
. B rid g e the n ap p e a led to th is C o u rt. DI S CU S S I ON ¶6. T hi s C our ts etforth the appr opr i at e s t andar d of r evi ew i n T

ow n of Flor ence v. Sea L ands, L td. , 759 So. 2d 1221, 1223- 1224 ( M i s s . 2000) , by s t at i ng:

T hi s C our thas he l d thatz oni ng i s nota j udi ci al mat t er , buta l egi s l at i ve m a tte r. L uterv. H

am m on , 529 So. 2d 625, 628 ( M i s s . 1988)
. O n appea l , the decis i on of the B oard m u st be u p h el d u nles s i ti s "arbitrary, capri ci ou s, d is c ri m in a to ry , o r i s ille g a l, o r w ith o u t a s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n tia ry b a s is ." Fair cloth v. L

yles , 592 So. 2d 941, 943 ( M i s s . 1991). T her ef or e, the dec i s i on t o rezone w i l l not be dis turbed w here i ti s "f ai rl y d ebatabl e. " S a u n de rs v . City of Jacks on , 511 So. 2d 902, 906 ( M i s s . 1987)
. "' Fai r l y debat abl e' i s the anti thesi s of arbitrary an d cap ri ci ou s. " Id
. I n addi t i on, thi s C our tenumer at ed the r equi r ement s f orr ezoni ng by s t at i ng: T he court s pr es um e thatcompre hens i ve zoni ng or di nance s adopt ed by m u n ici p al au tho ri ti es a re w ell plan n ed an d de sign ed t o b e p erm an en t. B efo re p rop erty is reclassifi ed from o n e zo n e to a n o ther, th ere m u st be p roo f eith er, ( 1) thatther e w as a mi s t ake i n the or i gi nal zoni ng or , (2) t he cha r act erof the nei ghborhood has change d t o s uch an e xt entas t o j us t i f y r ezoni ng and that publ i c nee d exi s t s f

orr ezon i ng. Fur therm or e, an appl i cants eeki ng r ezoni ng m us tpr ove by cl earand convi nci ng evi dence ei ther( 1) or( 2) above. T ow n of Flor ence , 7 5 9 S o . 2 d a t 1 2 2 3 -1 2 2 4 n .1 ; Cit y of Oxf or d v. I nm an , 405 So. 2d 111, 1 1 3 (M iss . 1 9 8 1 ); Ma

y o r & B d

. o f A lde rm e n v. E sta te o f L e w is , 963 So. 2d 1210, 1214 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 7 ). I . R equi rem ent s f or re z oni ng. ¶7. B r i dge ar gues that the tr i al court err ed i n f i ndi ng that r ezoni ng w as j us t i f i abl e on t he gr ounds of

m i s t ake a nd a change i n char act erof the nei ghborhood. A s thi s C our tf i nds that

### 4

ther e w as no err ori n the tr i al court ’ s de t erm i nat i on thatthe r ezoni ng w as j us t i f i abl e on the i s s ue of m i s t ake, w e need notaddr es s t he i s s ue of change i n char act erof the nei ghborhood. ¶8. B r i dge argues thatif a m i st ake w as m ade by the B oar d, i tw as ei therbeca us e ( 1) B oar d m ember s di d notknow w hatthey w er e vot i ng f or ; or( 2) they cha nged thei rm i nds abouthow t hey s houl d vot e. B r i dge cl ai m s thatnei ther of thes e tw o r eas ons j us t i f i es
r ezoni ng. ¶9. T he C i ty ar gues that a l ocal zon i ng author i ty can am end i t s zoni ng or di nance w hen th e re is a c ler ica l o r ad m in istra tiv e m ista k e , b u t n o t a m ista k e in ju d g m e n t. T h e C ity a d m its thata col or - codi ng m appi ng e r r oroc curr ed f ortw enty l ot s i n the Pr i ce Str eetar ea a nd w as a cl er i cal oradmi ni s tr at i ve mi s t ake. ¶10. T hi s C our t has hel d that “a m i s t ake w i thi n the m eani ng of the l aw i s not a m i s t ake of j udgm ent , but , r ather , a cl er i cal oradmi ni s tr at i ve mi s t ake. ” N ew A l bany v. R ay , 417 So. 2d 5 5 0 , 5 5 2 (M iss. 1 9 8 2 ). ¶11. T he tr i al courts t at ed: Si nce the ear l y 1970' s , the r ecor d i ndi cat es thatboth the north and s outh s i des of Pr i ce Str eetw er e zone d R B ( m ul t i
- f ami l y r es i dent i al )
. W hen the compre hens i ve plan w as adopt ed, a maj or i ty of the l ot s i n the s outh s i de of Pr i ce St r eetw er e zoned R 1A (s i ngl e[
- ] f ami l y re s i dent i al ) butt he nor th s i de of Pr i ce Str eetr emai ned R B
. The l ot s on the north and s outh s i des of Pr i ce Str eet are sim il ar, si n g le-fam il y h o u ses o n sm all lots. T h e re co rd is cl ea r th at th ere w er e s i m i l arm i s t akes i n the compr ehens i ve pl an w her e nei ghborhoods had been i ncorr ect l y zoned a nd thes e mi s t akes w er e s ubs equent l y corr ect ed. I ti s ent i r el y unde r s t andabl e thati n the devel opm entof a compre hens i ve pl an of this m agn i tud e m i st akes w ou l d b e m ade w hich w ou l d requir e corr ect i on s. T h e C o u rtrea li ze s tha t i n o rde r t o rec lassif y p rop erty o n the c ri teri a o f a m i s t a ke i n the or i gi na l z on i ng tha tthe mi s t a ke mus tno tbe a mi s t a ke of

### Ald erman P at Patterso n recu sed h imself from th e pro ceedin gs. 2 

### 5 ju d g m e n t, b u t r a th e r a c le ri c a l o r a d m in is tr a tiv e m is ta k e . T ow n of Flor ence [ v.]Se a La nd

s, LTD , 7 5 9 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 1 (M iss. 2 0 0 0 ). T h e C o u rt is o f th e o p in io n th a t th e re c o rd c lea rly re fle c ts th a t th e e rro r in fa ili n g to re z o n e the P ric e S tre e t p ro p e rty a s R 1 A (sin g le[-]fa m ily re sid e n tial) w as nota m i s t ake of

j udgm entbutone of

om i s s i on orover s i ght
. T he i s s ue of m i s t ake i s f

ai r l y debat abl e. ¶12. A num berof B oar d m ember s st at ed att he Sept ember6, 2005, m eet i ng thatthe zoni ng
w as a m i s t ake. A l derm an Jon Fi s herst at ed t hathe di d notknow w hy the B oar d “mi s s ed” 2 the s tr i p of

hous es i n the Pr i ce Str eetnei ghborhood. H e expl ai ned thatthe B oar d had do w ng raded a n um ber of areas t o prot ectthe si ng l e-f am i l y charact er of O xford and becau se the homes ors tructur es i n t he nei ghborhoods di d notc om pl y w i th the zoni ng. I n addi t i on, Fi s hers t at ed thatthe B oar d s houl d ha ve done the s ame thi ng t o Pr i ce St r eet . A l derm an U ly ss e s H o w e ll state d th a t “if I h a d k n o w n th a t [P ric e S tre e t] w a s z o n e d lik e th is, I w o u ld have ne ver– w oul d have w entand I ’ m w i l l i ng t o – w hen the t i m e come, I ’ m w i l l i ng t o m ake th e m o tio n to re z o n e it.” ¶13. A l derm an J ani ce A nt onow s t at ed: O ne has t o do w i th thi s ne ed t o s how a c hange i n the nei ghborhood. W e made a c h a n g e in th e n e ig h b o rh o o d w h e n w e a d o p te d th e c o m p re h e n s iv e p la n . W e c h a n g e d th e z o n in g in p ro p e rt y a d ja c e n t to th is p ro p e rt y o n P ri c e S tr e e t. W e change d i tf

r om R A t o R E
. T hati s a cha nge i n thatnei ghborhood. W e c h a n g e d th e z o n i n g o f t h e p r o p e r ty d i r e c t l y a c r o s s t h e s tr e e t . I twa s RB; a n d w e c h a n g e d it t o RN . S o w e u p g ra d e d th e z o n in g in a ll th e p ro p e rty adj ace ntt o thi s pr operty that ’ s up f orr ezoni ng, and yetw e o verl ooked that strip o f h o u se s o n P ric e S tre e t.

### 6

A nd I apol ogi ze. I f

eel that– l i ke s om e of

t he r es tof

us do, thatw e dr opped the bal l
. I f

I had s een thi s , I w ou l d neverhave a l l ow ed an RB zoni ng t o be s andw i ched be tw een RA and R E
. I tdoes n’ teven make any s ens e. T he B oar d vot ed unani m ous l y t o r ezone the Pr i ce Str eetpr operty. ¶14. W e f

i nd thatthe t est i m on y of the B oar d m ember s s how s thatthe B oar d m ade an admi ni s tr at i ve mi s t ake by noti ncl udi ng al l of the Pri ce Str eetnei ghborhood i n the r ezoni ng. T he B oar d had an obj ect i ve i n the comprehensi ve pl an and mer el y over l ooked the port i on
o f P ri ce S tr ee t atissue
. T h e testi m o n y of th e B o ard sh o w ed that the m em b ers w ere n o t aw are
o f th e fa ct th at th e R B zo n ing rem aine d in effec t after the zo n ing
. T h e tr ial c o u rtd id n o t err by f i ndi ng thatthe i s s ue of

m i s t ake w as f

ai r l y debat abl e. I I . C om pl i anc e wi t h t he c om pr e he ns i ve pl an. ¶15. B r i dge cont ends that the f utur e l and -use m ap cont ai ned i n the compre hens i ve pl an pr ovi des the cl ear es tgui dance f orcont empl at ed f

utur e devel opm entof the subj ectpr operty. B r i dge ar gues thatthe zoni ng ordi nance s houl d be i n compl i ance w i th the compr ehens i ve pl an atthe t i m e the zoni ng or di nance i s passed. H e argu es thatthe C i ty i s r ew r i t i ng t he
o r d i n a n c e t o c o mp l y wi th o n l y o n e o f th e f o u re l e me n t s o f

th e c o mp r e h e n s i v e p l a n . As author i ty, B r i dge r el i es on M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 17- 1- 1 ( R ev. 2003) , w hi ch
s et s f or th the def

i ni t i on of a compr ehens i ve pl an (i ncl udi ng, as a mi ni m um , the goal s and obj ect i ves, l and -use pl an, transport at i on plan, and comm uni ty- f aci l i t i es pl an) and M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 17- 1- 9 ( R ev. 2003) w hi ch s t at es , i n part , that“[ z] oni ng r egul at i ons
s hal l be made i n acc or dance w i th a compre hens i ve pl an. ” Ther ef or e, B r i dge ar gues thatt he tr i al cour terr ed by f

i ndi ng thatthe r ezoni ng w as i n compl i ance w i th the compr ehens i ve pl an.

### 7

¶1 6. T he C i t y contends thatt he r ezoni ng w as cons i s t entw i t h t he goal s of t he
co m p reh en sive p lan. In a d d it ion , the C ity arg u es th at i t i s n o t r eq u ir ed to am en d it s futu re l and- us e pl an bef

or e amendi ng the zoni ng or di nance . Fur ther , the C i ty cont ends thatB r i dge bas es hi s ar gum enton the f actt hatt he f

utur e l and- us e m ap i n t he 2004 com pr ehens i ve pl an
s h o ws th e p r o p e r ty a s RB. ¶17. T he tr i al courts t at ed: Z o n in g re g u la tio n s m u s t b e m a d e in a c c o rd a n c e w ith a c o m p re h e n s iv e p la n [.] Sec. 17- 1- 9, M i s s . C ode A nn. ( 1972)
. T he C om pr ehens i ve Pl an of the C i ty of O xf or d of O ct ober7, 2004 cl ear l y pl ace s as a pr i or i ty the pr es ervat i on of the phys i cal char act erand s oci al f abr i c of O xf or d nei ghborhoods
. T he ac t i on of the B oar d of A l derm en i n r ezoni ng Pr i ce Str eetw as compat i bl e w i th the purpos es and goal s of

the compr ehens i ve pl an. ¶18. W e f

i nd that the r ecor d r evea l s that the C i ty’ s compre hens i ve pl an w as notamended to c o m p ly w ith th e re z o n in g o f a p o rtio n o f th e P ric e S tre e t n e ig h b o rh o o d fr o m R B p ro p e rty t o R 1A pr operty. A tthe h eari ng , the Ci ty admi t t ed thatthe compr ehens i ve pl an w as not
a m e n d e d to c o m p ly w ith th e z o n in g c h a n g e , h o w e v e r, th e C ity m a in tain e d th a t itw o u ld amend t he compr ehens i ve pl an i f the zoni ng change w as perm i t t ed. ¶ 1 9
. W e fin d th a t th e z o n in g sta tu tes d o n o t s p e c ify th a t a fu tu re la n d -u se m a p , w h ich is p a rt o f a c o m p re h e n siv e p lan , m u st b e a m e n d e d b e fo re a z o n in g o rd in a n c e a m e n d m e n t. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 17- 1- 1 t o - 39 ( R ev. 2003) pr ovi des f oramendm ent s and chan ges t o be made t o compre hens i ve pl ans and zoni ng or di nance s . Fur therm or e, M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 1 7 -1-1 1 (1)(a) p rov ides that a g o v ern ing a u tho ri ty o f a
m uni ci pal i ty a nd c ount y may pr ovi de f orthe amendm entof

a c om pr ehensi ve p l an.

### 8

M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 17- 1- 11( 2) pr ovi des , i n part , thatthe “gove r ni ng author i ty of

eac h m uni ci pal i ty and county m ay adopt , am end and e nf or ce the compr ehens i ve p lan, z on i ng ordi nan ce” aft er a pub l i c heari ng as provi ded by S ect i on 17 -1- 15
. F urther, M i s s i s s i ppi C od e A nn ot a t e d Se c t i on 17
- 1- 15 pr ovi des that“[ t ] he governi ng author i ty of eac h
m uni ci pal i ty and county s hal l pr ovi de f orthe manneri n w hi ch the compr ehens i ve pl an, zoni ng or di nance ( i ncl udi ng the of f i ci al z oni ng map)
. . . s hal l be det erm i ned, es t abl i s hed and enf or ced, and f

r om t i m e t o t i m e, amended, s uppl ement ed orchange d. ” See al s o M i s s . C ode A n n . § 1 7 -1 -1 7 (R e v . 2 0 0 3 ). T h e s ta tu te s c o n tem p late n e c e ss a ry a m e n d m e n ts to
com prehen si ve p l ans and zon i ng ordi nan ces. ¶20. B r i dge al s o ar gues that the C i ty, i n ef f ect , i s r ew r i t i ng the or di nance t o s t at e thatt he zoni ng r egul at i ons s houl d be made i n acc or dance w i th one of the four el ement s of

t he
c o m p re h e n siv e p lan . In d e e d , th e C ity a rg u e s th a t th e re z o n in g w a s c o n sis ten t w ith th e g o a ls
as s etf or th i n t he compr ehens i ve pl an. W e agr ee. ¶2 1. W e f

i nd t hatt he l ot s i n t he Pr i c e Str e e tne i gh bo rho od a ti s s ue a r e a l l pa r tof the “N ei ghborhood C ons e rva t i on Zone ” a s s pe c i f i e d i n the Ci ty’ s 20 04 c om pr ehens i ve pl an. T he compre hens i ve p l an setf or th the comm uni ty char act erand i t s per s pect i ve and s t at ed that “[ m ] ai nt ai ni ng and enhanc i ng the vi br antphys i cal and s oci al char act erof O xf or d i s the chal l enge a tthe cor e of

t hi s pl anni ng ef

f or t . ” Fur ther , the compr ehens i ve pl an s et s f or th the “O xf or d G ui di ng Pr i nci pl es ” w hi ch “e s t abl i s h si x funda m ent al urba n desi gns and pl anni ng p ri n cipl es f

or O xford’ s f

utur e grow th. ” T he fi rs tpri ncipl e i s t o “[r ] ecog nize O xford ’s h ist o ric w a y s o f tow n b u il d ing an d u se th o se trad it ion s to p rov ide a fram ew o rk fo r future

### 9

gr ow th. ” The goal of the com pr ehens i ve pl an i s t o “[ c] ons erve and enhanc e thos e attr i but es that d efin e O x ford ’s sp ec ial co m m u n ity ch ara cter an d the c u ltu ral he ri tage o f O x ford ’s hi s t or i c nei ghborhoods
. ” I n addi t i on, the obj ect i ve f orneighborhoods i s t o “[ p] r ot ectt he phys i cal c har act era nd s oci al f abr i c of O xf or d’ s nei ghborhoods
. ” W e f i nd thatthe r ezoni ng i s i n keepi ng w i th the compre hens i ve pl an, ora tthe very l eas t , the mat t eri s f ai r l y debat abl e. ¶22. W hi l e B r i dge cont ends that the C i ty i s r ew r i t i ng the com pr ehens i ve pl an t o i ncl ude onl y one of

the f ourel ement s , the goal s and obj ect i ves , he f ai l s t o cont empl at e the amendm entpr oces s perm i t t ed by s t atut e. Fur ther , he as ks thi s C ou rtto consi deronl y one partof the compre hens i ve pl an, thatbei ng the l and- us e pl an. N otw i ths t andi ng hi s ar gum ent and w i thoutr ei t er at i ng the pr evi ous d i s cus s i on of the i s s ue of

m i s t ake i n Sect i on I and the sta tem e n ts o f th e B o a rd m e m b e rs, w e fin d th a t B rid g e ’s a rg u m e n t fa ils to re c o g n ize th a t, among ot herthi ngs , the B oar d m ade a m i s t ake i n zoni ng w hi ch nec es s i t at ed a c hange i n t he zoni ng or di nance . A tthe t i m e the 2004 compre hens i ve pl an w as adopt ed, the compr ehens i ve pl an appe ar ed t o be i n compl i ance w i th the zoni ng r egul at i ons . O nce the B oar d r eal i zed the
m i s t ake, i tbe gan t o r ect i f y i t . A ccor di ngl y, w e f

i nd thatthe tr i al courtdi d noterrby f i ndi ng thatthe r ezoni ng i s compat i bl e w i th the compr ehens i ve pl an. CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 3
. F o r th e fo re g o in g re a so n s, th e ju d g m e n t o f th e L a fa y e tte C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt is af f i r m ed. ¶ 2 4
. AFF I RM ED
.

### 10

W AL LE R AND D I AZ , P . J J . , CARL S ON AND RA NDOL P H, J J . , CONCUR. GR AVES, J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY. S M I TH, C. J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH S E P A R A T E W R I T T E N O P I N I O N J O I N E D B Y D I C K I N S O N , J . L A M A R , J ., NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . S M I T H, CH I E F J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 2 5
. I c a n n o t a g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s c o n c lu s io n s a n d m u st th e re fo re d iss e n t. F irst, to al l ow the C i ty of O xford B oard of A l derm en (“C i ty”) t o just i fy a zon i ng am end m ent because they di d notr eal i ze w hatthey w er e vot i ng f ori ni t i al l y thr eat ens the very bedr ock of our
s oci ety. Second, the tr i al courtand the maj or i ty m i s appl y the s t andar d forr evi ew i ng a change i n the cha r act erof the nei ghborhood and thus r eac h a fl aw ed res ul t . Fi nal l y, t he
m a jo rity s im p ly ig n o re s th is C o u rt’s p re c e d e n t b y a llo w in g th e z o n in g a m e n d m e n t d e sp ite i t s inconsi st ency w i th the l and- us e map. I w oul d r ever s e the ci r cui tcourt ’ s j udgm entand
re n d e r th e z o n in g o rd in a n c e in v a lid . F o r th e se re a so n s, I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. M i s t ake
. ¶26. “Ther e i s a s tr ong pre s um pt i on . . . thata muni ci pal i ty car ef ul l y cons i der ed i t s curr ent and f utur e nee ds w hen adopt i ng i t s pl an f ordevel opm ent . T he dec i s i on t o change s uch a pl an
a m er e tw o year s af

t eri t s adopt i on i s s us pect . ” T ow n of Flor ence v. Sea L ands, L td. , 759 S o . 2 d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 5 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶2 7
. In th e p re se n t c a se , C ity firs t z o n e d th e s u bjec t pro p erty a s R B (m u lti -fa m ily
r es i dent i al ) i n 1971. I n 2004, w hen C i ty adopt ed i t s compre hens i ve pl an, C i ty af f i r m ed the
s ubj ectpr operty’ s des i gnat i on as R B
. A m er e s i x m onths l at er , appel l ant s appl i ed f ort he

### 11

zo n ing am en d m en t, w h ich the C ity g ran ted in O ctob er o f 20 0 5
. In li g h t of th is C o u rt ’s gui dance i n Sea L ands , s uch ac t i ons ar e “s us pect . ” ¶28. I n Sea L ands , thi s C ou rtfai l ed t o fi nd a basi s f orm i s t ake due t o the governi ng author i ty’ s f

ai l ur e t o gi ve not i ce, hol d a publ i c hea r i ng, orpr oper l y adopta zoni ng or di nance . Sea L ands , 7 59 S o. 2d at1224. B uti n B a lla rdv. Sm ith , 234 M i s s . 531, 540, 107 So. 2d 580, 583 ( M i s s . 1958) , thi s Courtr ecogni zed thata di s cr epanc y betw een a dat e on a map and a dat e cont ai ned w i t hi n an or di nance w as a mer e cl er i cal err orw hi ch pr ovi ded a ba s i s f or
m is ta k e . ¶29. W hi l e the al derm en now m ai nt ai n that the zoni ng of the s ubj ect pr operty as R B w as
a m ista k e , th is is n o t th e k in d o f m ista k e c o n tem p late d b y th is C o u rt’s z o n in g p re c e d e n t. L egi s l at i ve comm ent s s uch as “s houl d have, ” “w oul d have, ” and “ i f I had know n” do not ju s tif y a “ d o -o v e r” u n d e r t h e g u is e o f m is ta k e . L and-U s e M ap Sh oul d be C ont rol l i ng. ¶30. T he m aj or i ty r ecogni zes that the m os t r ece nt zoni ng change di d not compl y w i t h t he f utur e l and- us e map, w hi ch w as partof the C i ty’ s 2004 compre hens i ve pl an, butaf f i r m s t he tr i al j udge’ s det erm i nat i on t hat t he zoni ng change compl i ed w i th the compr ehens i ve pl an. I c a n n o t a g re e . ¶31. M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 17-1- 9 st at es i n partthat“[ z] oni ng r egul at i ons sh a ll be made i n accor dance w i th a com pr ehens i ve pl an. ” (Em phas i s added)
. Fur therm or e, i n Bar bo urv. G unn , 890 So. 2d 843 (M i s s . 2004), t hi s C our thel d thata map w as contr ol l i ng
w h e re it w a s a tta c h e d to a n in c o n s is te n t J o in t R e s o lu tio n o f t h e M is s is s ip p i L e g is la tu re .

### 12

¶32. I r ecogni ze thatw her e a z oni ng m ap ref l ect s t he cur r entzoni ng, any amendm ent
nece s s ar i l y conf

l i ct s w i th t he map. I n or dert o avoi d thi s inconsi s t ency the governi ng author i ty s houl d s eek c ont empora neous l y t o amend bot h the zoni ng and any l and- us e map. S u c h a c tio n w o u ld a llo w th e g o v e rn in g a u th o rity to e x e rc ise its lib e ra l p o w e rs g ra n ted in M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 17- 1- 11( 2) i n adopt i ng and amendi ng t he compre hens i ve pl an and z oni ng or di nance s , w hi l e compl yi ng w i t h M i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 17- 1- 9' s m andat e thatzoni ng regul at i ons be made i n acc or dance w i th a
c o m p re h e n s iv e p la n . ¶3 3
. F o r the ab o v e-stated rea so n s, I ca n n o t ag ree w ith the m ajority ’s o p inion to affirm . It is in a p p ro p ria te to a llo w th e a ld e rm e n sim p ly to c h a n g e th e ir v o te b e c a u se th e y fa iled to
a p p re c iate th e c o n se q u e n c e s o f th e ir v o tes w h e n c a st. S u c h a fa ilu re d o e s n o t re p re se n t a mi s t a ke f

orthe p urpo s e s o f

j us t i f yi ng a z on i ng c ha ng e . Fi na l l y, wher e a gover ni ng author i ty’ s comprehens i ve pl an i ncl udes a l and- us e map, I w oul d r equi r e any z oni ng amendm entto occ urcont empora neous l y w i th the amendm entof any l and- us e map. A c c o rd in g ly , I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. DI CKI NS ON, J . , J OI NS THI S OP I NI ON.