I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CT - 0 0 2 7 4 - S CT RO UN DSTO NE DE VELO PM EN T, LLC
v. C I T Y OF NA T C HEZ , MI S S I S S I P P I A ND T HE MAY OR & B OA R D O F

A L DER MEN

OF T HE CI TY O F N

ATCH EZ, M I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 01/ 14/ 2010 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . F ORRES T A. J OHN S ON, J R. COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: ADA M S COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT A T T O R N E Y S F O R A P P E L L A N T : M IC H A E L V . C O R Y , J R . DALE DANKS, J R. ATT ORNEY F OR APP EL LE ES : EVE RET T T . S AND ERS NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 01/ 17/ 2013 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. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. R ounds t on e D e ve l op ment , LLC , s ou gh tt o d e ve l op a n a f f or dabl e- hous i ng s ubdi vi s i on i n the C i ty of

N at chez
. T he l and on w hi ch i ts oughtt o do s o had tw o di f f er entzoni ng cl as s i f i cat i ons : O
- L ( O pen- L and) and R
- 1 (Si ngl e- Fam i l y R es i dent i al )
. T he C i ty’ s Pl anni ng C o m m issi o n d en ied R o u n d ston e’s sit e p lan; itfo u n d tha t th e O -L a rea m u st be rez o n ed R -1 bef or e the devel opm entc oul d be a ppr oved. The M ayora nd Boar d of A l derm an then deni ed R ounds t one’ s r ezoni ng r eques t . T he C i r cuitC ou r tof A dams C ounty and the C our tof

### 2

A ppeal s both af

f i rm ed the C i ty’ s deci s i on. W e gr ant ed ce r t i or ar i t o addr es s : ( 1) w hetherthe C ity e rre d in re q u irin g th a t th e O -L a re a b e r e z o n e d R -1 a n d (2 ) w h e th e r th e C ity e rre d in fa ili n g to g ra n t R o u n d sto n e ’s r e z o n in g re q u e st. W e fin d th a t th e C ity ’s in terp re tatio n o f its zoni ng or di nance t o r equi r e r ezoni ng f r om O
- L t o R
- 1 w as notm ani f es t l y unr eas onabl e and thati tdi d notactarbi tr ar i l y orcapr i ci ous l y i n denyi ng the r ezoni ng. T her ef or e, w e af

f i rm the ju d g m e n ts o f t h e c ir c u it c o u rta n d th e C o u rto f A p p e a ls
. F ACT S & PROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. R ounds t one s oughtt o devel op a s ubdi vi si on call ed A ud ub on T err ace i n N at chez , M i s s i s s i ppi
. T he deve l opm entw as t o cons i s tof s i xty- f i ve s i ngl e- f

ami l y homes. I tw as t o be f i nance d, i n part , thr ough a t ax- cr edi tpr ogr am w i th the M i s s i s s i ppi H om e C orpor at i on ( M H C )
. M H C r equi r es thatal l hom es bui l tw i th t ax cr edi t s be hi gh- qual i ty hom es . T he
s ubdi vi s i on pr ovi ded a l eas e- pur chas e pl an by w hi ch the homes w oul d be l eas ed f orf i f t een year s . A tthe end of

the f i f t een- yearper i od, the r es i dent s w oul d have the op t i on t o buy the hom es ata di s count ed pr i ce. ¶3. T he s i t e w her e R ounds t one s ought t o bui l d t he subdi vi s i on w as zoned O
- L ( O penL a n d ) a n d R -1 (S in g le -F a m ily R e s id e n tia l) . O -L d is tr ic ts a re o f o p e n c h a ra c te r. ¶4. R ounds t one cl ai m s that i t r ece i ved and r el i ed upon thr ee l et t er s pr i or t o pur chas i ng th e site . O n F e b ru a ry 1 0 , 2 0 0 6 , A n d re w L . S m ith , P lan n in g D ire c to r, w ro te a lette r to D a v id S tra n g e o f th e N e ig h b o rh o o d D e v e lo p m e n t A lli a n c e , L L C . S tra n g e , ac c o rd in g to R o u n d ston e, pre v iou sly h ad w o rke d o n the A u d u b o n T errac e d ev elop m e n t. T h e re co rd i ndi cat es thatSt r ange ha d ow ned the l and bef or e R ounds t one pur chas ed i t . T he l ett ers t at ed:

### The Cour t of Appeals ’ opinion s tate d: “ Roundstone c laim s thelette rs were provide d 1 

### to it and it s l ende rs , but

none of the le tt er s were addres se d to Rounds tone . There cord does no t sho w what relatio nsh ip, if any, R ound ston e hadwiththe recip ients o f the lett ers.” Roundst one Dev ., LLC v. Ci

ty of Nat che z , __ So . 3d __

_, 20 11 WL 55 47 80 5, at * 1 (M iss. 3 T he [ A udubon T err ace ] pr oj ecti s zoned R-1 ( Si ngl e Fam i l y) Resi dent i al D i stri ctaccording t o the O ff i ci al Z on i ng M ap o f the C i ty of N at chez. T he u se of the pr operty as s i ngl e- f ami l y devel opm enti s a per m i t t ed us e underthe s i t es [ s i c] R
- 1 zoni ng cl as s i f

i cat i on. A ny new cons truct i on m us tbe i n acc or dance w i th the r es pect i ve s ubdi vi s i on re g u la tio n s a n d b u ild in g c o d e s o f t h e C ity
. . . . O n D ece m ber21, 2006, D enn i s E . St ory, D i r ect orof Pl anni ng and Zoni ng, w r ot e another lette r to S tra n g e . T h a t lette r sta ted : T he r ef er ence d pr operty (att he t erm i nus of L af ayett e Str eeti n C oncor de A d d iti o n S u b d iv isio n ) is z o n e d “ R -1 ” (S in g le- F a m ily ) R e sid e n tial D istric t, acc or di ng t o the O f

f i ci al Z oni ng M ap of

the C i ty of

N at chez
. T he us e of

the p rop erty fo r a sing le-fam il y d ev e lo p m e n t i s a p erm itted u se u n d er the R -1 z o n in g c la s s if

ic a tio n . . . . A n d fi n all y , o n M ay 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , W alt er H u ston , L an d U se P lann er, w ro te a letter t o “M r. Phi l l i ps ” of

the SunA m er i ca H ous i ng Fund, L P, w hi ch w as R ou nd st one’ s l ender
. I ts t at ed sim ilarly : Pl eas e be a dvi s ed that : ( i ) the [ A udubon T err ace pr oj ect ] i s zoned R-1. ( Si ngl e- Fam i l y R es i dent i al D i s tr i ct ) w hi ch zoni ng al l ow s s i ngl e- f ami l y us e as a mat t ero f

r i ghtand i s w i thi n the ci ty l i m i t s of N at chez , M i s s i s s i ppi , ( i i ) the Pr oj ecti s n otl oc a t e d w i thi n a n ov e r l a y z on e d i s tr i c t( s uc h a s , f ore xa mpl e a P UD o ra n h i s t o r i c a l d i s tr i c t ) , a n d ( i i i ) th e r e a r e n o v i o l a t i o n s o f z o n i n g l a w, o r n o n -c o n fo rm in g u se s a n d th e P rojec t is in c o m p lian c e w ith a ll ap p lica b le zoni ng and s ubdi vi s i on l aw s , or di nance s and r egul at i ons ( i ncl udi ng w i thout li m it ati o n , all tho se e stab li sh ing or relat ing to p ark ing req u ir em en ts)
. F u rth er, th e re a re n o re q u ire m e n ts w h ich m u st b e sa tisfie d in o rd e r fo r th e P roje c t to ful l y co m ply w i th ap pli cable zon ing and subd i vis i on l aw s, ordi nan ces, re g u la tio n s a n d p a rk in g re q u ir e m e n ts . . . . T hese t hree l et t ers , i tturned o ut, w ere i nco rr ectabo ut the land’s zoni ng st atus. 1

### Ct. App. Nov. 15, 2011) . In it s pe titi on for wri t of certiorari, Roundstone a ss erts that t he Co urt o f Ap p eals’ o pin ioncon flicts withthe facts an d triv ializes the imp ortan ce of th ese three letters. T he reco rd is clear, R o un d st o n e say s, that th e May16 , 20 07 , letter was to Rounds t on e ’ s l e nd e r

and that thetwo o the r

l e tt e r s w e r eto St

r ang e , who p r e vi ou sly had wo rkedonthe d evelo pment. We di sagre e wi th Rounds tone ’s charac te ri zati on of the Court of Appeal s’ opinion on this p oint. Th e Co urt o f Ap peals w as correct th at no ne o f the lette rs w as ad dressedto Roundstone i ts el f. More over , i t i s c le ar that Roundstone knew of theproperty’ s partial O- L desig natio n whenit filed its site-p lan rev iew an d subd ivisio n-d evelo pment app lication s. 4 ¶ 5 . R o u n d sto n e c o m p lete d its S ite P lan R e v iew A p p lica tio n o n A u g u st 1 4 , 2 0 0 7 , a n d its Subdi vi s i on Appl i c a t i on on Se pt e mber9, 2007. B oth appl i cat i ons not ed thatthe pr operty w as c u rr e n tly z o n e d R -1 a n d O -L . ¶6. T he C i ty’ s Si t e Pl an R evi ew Com m i t t ee appr oved the s i t e pl an and s ubdi vi s i on pl at on Sept ember12, 2007. B ut , on Sept ember20, 2007, the C i ty’ s Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on decl i ned t o appr ove the s i t e pl an and s ubdi vi s i on pl at . I ns t ead, the Pl anni ng C om m i s s i on t abl ed the s i t e pl an unt i l the pr operty w as r ezone d f r om O
- L t o R
- 1 and a tr af f i c s tudy w as c o m p le te d
. ¶7. R ounds t on e sub m i t t ed an app l i cat i on to t he P l anni ng C om m i s s i on t o r ezone the pr operty. The Pl anni ng Com m i s s i on de ni ed the r ezoni ng r eques t , and R ounds t one appe al ed to th e M a y o r a n d B o a rd o f A ld e rm e n . ¶8 . T he B oard c on si dered R ou ndst one’ s zoni ng r eques ton February 16, 2008. R o u n d sto n e ’s a tto rn e y a n d a M H C re p re se n tativ e sp o k e a t th e h e a rin g . F o llo w in g th e ir pr es ent at i ons , conce rned ci t i zens w er e al l ow ed t o s peak. A m aj or i ty of thos e ci t i zens oppos ed the deve l opm ent . U l t i m at el y, the B oar d vot ed unani m ous l y t o af f i r m the C o m m is s io n ’s d e c is io n .

### 5

¶9. R ounds t one appe al ed the B oar d’ s deci s i on t o t he C i r cui tC our tof A dams C ounty. T he ci r cui tcourtaff

i rm ed the dec i s i on of

the B oar d, f

i ndi ng thati t“w as f

ai r l y debat abl e and
s u p p o rt e d b y s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d w a s n e ith e r a rb itr a ry n o r c a p ri c io u s .” ¶10. T he C our t of A ppeal s af f i rm ed the ci r cui t court ’ s j udgm ent i n a s even- tw o deci s i on. R oundstone D ev. , L L C v. Cit y of N atchez , _
_ S o . 3 d ___ , 2 0 1 1 W L 5 5 4 7 8 0 5 (M iss . C t. A pp. N ov. 15, 2011)
. W e gr ant ed ce r t i or ar i t o addr es s the pr opr i ety of the C i ty’ s deni al of R o u n d s to n e ’s s ite p la n a n d re z o n in g re q u e s t. DI S CU S S I ON I . T he C i t y’ s i nt erpre t at i on of i ts zon i n g ord i n an ce t o requi re rez oni ng f

rom O - L t o R - 1 w as not m ani f es t l y unreas onabl e. ¶11. R ounds t one ar gues t hatt he appr oval of a s i t e pl an i s m i ni s t er i al i n natur e: T he pl an
m u st be ap p rov ed if

all req u ir em en ts are m et. R o u n d ston e ins ist s tha t i ts plan m et th e C ity ’s zoni ng r equi r ement s be c a us e s i ng l e - f a mi l y h omes a r e pe rmi tt e d us es i n O
- L zones ; ther ef or e, th e C ity h a d n o g ro u n d s to d e n y a p p ro v a l a n d re q u ir e re z o n in g . ¶12. E ven i f s i t e- pl an appr oval i s m i ni s t er i al i n natur e, as R ounds t one cont ends , appr oval i s notr equi r ed unl es s t he si t e pl an com pl i es w i th the zoni ng or di nance . T he C i ty f ound that R o u n d sto n e ’s s ite p lan d id n o t. T h e C ity in terp re ted its o rd in a n c e to re q u ire tha t O -L d istric ts be recl assi fi ed b efor e being sub divi ded i nto urban b uil ding si t es f or si ng l e-f

am i l y h om es. A nd, as the C our tof

A ppeal s s t at ed, “[ t ] he l anguage of the or di nance i s . . . f

l exi bl e enough t o acc om m odat e the C i ty’ s i nt erpr et at i on. ” Ro u n d s to n e De v. , LLC , 2 011 W L 5547805, at
* 3 .

### 6

¶13 . O n on e han d, R ou nd st on e i s corr ect that si ng l e-f am i l y dw el l i ng s are a perm i t t ed u se i n O
- L di s tr i ct s . Y et , atthe s ame t i m e, the O
- L or di nance al s o coul d be i nt erpr et ed as
re q u irin g th a t th o se d istric ts b e re c las sifie d . It state s th a t: [ O
- L ] di s tr i ct s a r e composed mai nl y of uns ubdi vi ded l ands thatar e vac antor i n ag ri cultural o r f

orestry uses, w i th som e d w el l i ng s and som e accessory uses. T he r egul at i ons ar e des i gned t o pr ot ectthe es s ent i al l y open cha r act erof the di s tr i ct s by p rohi bi t i ng the es t abl i s hm entof s catt er ed us es thatar e unr el at ed t o any gene r al pl an of

devel opm entand thatm i ghti nhi bi tthe bes tf utur e urban ut i l i zat i on of

the l and. I ti s i nt ended thatl and i n thes e di s tr i ct s w i l l be rec lassif ied to it s a p p rop ri ate reside n ti al, c o m m erc ial , a n d ind u str ial ca tego ry i n acc or dance w i th the amendm entpr ocedur e s etf or th her ei n w heneve rs uch l and i s subdivi ded i nto urban b uil ding si t es. C ity o f N a tc h e z Z o n in g O rd in a n c e a n d S u b d iv is io n R e g u la tio n s § IV (1 ). ¶1 4. A pl aus i bl e i nt erpr et at i on of the O
- L or di na nc e i s tha tr e c l a s s i f i c a t i on coul d be
r equi r ed pr i ort o the l and bei ng s ubdi vi ded. Fi r s t , the l as ts ent ence s t at es thatr ecl as s i f i cat i on is in te n d e d w h e n e v e r a n O -L d is tr ic t is s u b d iv id e d in to a n u rb a n b u ild in g s ite
. I d. I tdoes not
s t at e thatr ecl as s i f

i cat i on i s r equi r ed pers e, buti tpr ovi des thatr ecl as s i f i cat i on i s i nt ended. Furthe r , the p hr a s e “ w he ne ve rs uc h l a nd i s s ub di vi de d” i s a mbi gu ou s : I tc ou l d mean that
r ecl as s i f i cat i on s houl d occuraf

t erthe l and has been s ubdi vi ded, as R ounds t one as s ert s , but i tal s o coul d m ean pr i ort o orshort l y bef or e any s ubdi vi s i on. Second, the or di nance s t at es that“ [ t ] he r egul at i ons [ of O
- L di s tr i ct s ] a r e des i gned t o pr ot ectthe es s ent i al l y open cha r act er of the di s tr i ct s by pr ohi bi t i ng the es t abl i s hm entof s catt er ed us es thatar e unr el at ed t o any gener al pl an of

devel opm entand thatm i ghti nhi bi tthe bes tf utur e urban ut i l i zat i on of the l and. ” I d. B y r equi r i ng r ecl as s i f i cat i on bef

or e a l ar ge pr oj ect , the C i ty i s abl e t o ens ur e that the propos ed us e f

i t s w i thi n the C i ty’ s gener al pl an of devel opm entand thati tw oul d not in h ib it th e b e s t f

u tu re u rb a n u tiliz a tio n o f t h e la n d
.

### 7

¶ 1 5 . L o c a l au th o rities ’ c o n stru c tio n o f z o n in g o rd in a n c e s is g iv e n g re a t w e ig h t u n les s th e ir
c o n s tru c tio n is m a n if

e s tly u n re a s o n a b le
. H

al l v. Ci t y of Ri dg e land , 37 S o. 3d 25 , 40 (M i ss. 2010) ( quot i ng Colum bus & G r eenvil le R y. Co. v. Scales , 57 8 S o. 2d 27 5, 27 9 (M i ss. 1 9 9 1 )). W e c a n n o t sa y th a t t h e C ity ’s in terp re tatio n o f th e o rd in a n c e h e re w a s m a n ife stly
unr eas onabl e. A nd , un de rtha ti nt e rpr e t a t i on , R ounds t one’ s s i t e pl an f ai l ed t o m eetthe zoni ng
r equi r ement s . T he C i ty’ s deci s i on t o deny t he si t e pl an and r equi r e r ezoni ng, ther ef or e, w as
n o t im p ro p e r. I I . T he C i t y’ s deci s i on t o d eny R ound s t one’ s rez oni ng reques t w as not a rb it ra ry , ca p riciou s, d iscrim ina tor y , il lega l, o r w it h o u t a sub st an ti al basi s. ¶ 1 6 . Z o n in g issu e s a re leg isla tiv e in n a tu re . T h o m a s v . B d

. o f S u p e rv iso rs o

f P a n o la Co u n ty , 45 So. 3d 1173, 1180 ( M i s s . 2010) ( ci t i ng L uterv. H am m on , 529 S o. 2d 625, 628 ( M i s s . 1988) )
. Zoni ng de ci s i ons by boar ds of s upervi s or s w i l l “ ‘ notbe s eta s i de unl es s [ they
a re ] c le a rly sh o w n to b e a rb itrar y , ca p ric io u s, d isc rim in a to ry , o r [a re ] i lleg a l, orw ith o u t a
s ubs t ant i al evi dent i ary bas i s . ’ ” T hom as , 45 So. 3d at1180 ( quot i ng Fair cloth v. L yles , 592 S o . 2d 9 4 1 , 9 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 1 )). T h eir de cisi o n s w il l no t be d istu rbe d if the issu e is “fairly deb at able. ” T

hom as , 45 So. 3d at1181 ( ci t i ng Childs v. H anc oc k Count

y Bd. of S u pervisors , 1 S o . 3 d 8 5 5 , 8 5 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 9 ))
. ¶17. T o r ecl as s i f

y pr opert y, the pa rty seeki ng re cl as s i f i cat i on m us ts how , by cl ear and
co n v incin g ev ide n ce , eith er “ that (1) a m ist ak e in th e o ri g inal zo n ing o cc u rred ; or (2) a
c h a n g e in th e c h a ra c tero f t h e n e ig h b o rh o o d o c c u rre d th a t ju stifie d re z o n in g , an d a p u b lic need e xi s t ed f

orthe r ezoni ng. ” T

hom as , 45 S o. 3d at11 81 (ci t at i on om i t t ed). C han ges m ust be made af

t ercar ef ul cons i der at i on becaus e i nves t m ent s i n l and and pr operty ar e s i gni f i cant

### 8

fin a n c ial d e c isio n s, a n d a lan d o w n e r sh o u ld b e a b le to re ly u p o n a z o n in g p lan to m a in tain th e u s e a n d v a lu e o f

h is p ro p e rt y . See T

ow n of Flor ence v. Sea L ands, L td. , 759 So. 2d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 8 -2 9 (M is s . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶18. R ounds t one ar gues thatthe Courtof A pp e a l s , i n a dd r e s s i ng thi s pa r t i cul ari s s ue, added
a new s t ep t o the tr adi t i onal zoni ng anal ys i s . T he C our tof A ppeal s not ed thatthe or di nance a m e n d m e n t p ro c e d u re sta ted th a t th e o rd in a n c e c o u ld b e a m e n d e d o n ly u n d e r c e rta in
c o n d itio n s . Rou nd

s to ne Dev. , LLC , 2011 W L 5547805, at*4. O ne of thos e condi t i ons w as that“[ t ] he s ubdi vi s i on ori m m i nents ubdi vi s i on of ope n l and i nt o urban bui l di ng s i t es m akes
r ecl as s i f i cat i on n e c e ss a ry a n d

d e sir a b le
. ” I

d. ( quot i ng C i ty of

N at chez Z oni ng O r di nance an d S u b d ivisi o n R eg u lat ion s § X V (1) (em p h asis ad d ed ). B ase d o n that lang u ag e, th e C o u rt of A ppeal s s t at ed that“ [ t ] he onl y que s t i on unde rthe or di nance w as w hetherr ecl as s i f i cat i on
w as ‘ nece s s ary and des i r abl e. ’ ” Rou nd s to ne Dev. , LLC , 2011 W L 5547805, at*4
. “That phr as e, ” the courtadded, “conf er s s ubs t ant i al di s cr et i on on the B oar d t o r ej ectordeny an appl i cat i on t o r ecl as s i f

y O
- L ar eas . ” I

d. ¶ 1 9 . W e a g re e w it h R o u n d s to n e th a t a n e c e s s a ry -a n d -d e s ir a b le a n a ly s is is n o t p ro p e r. A tr adi t i onal anal ys i s — w hetherther e w as a pr i orm i s t ake orw hethert her e has been a change i n the cha r act erof

the nei ghborhood combi ned w i th publ i c nee d — i s pr oper , even under th e s e fa c ts . ¶20. T her e i s no cont ent i on i n t hi s cas e thatt her e w as a m i s t ake i n the or i gi nal zoni ng. T he
s ol e i s s ue, r ather , i s w hetherthe cha r act erof the nei ghborhood had cha nged t o s uch an e xt ent
as t o j us t i f

y r ecl as s i f

i cat i on f r om O
- L t o R
- 1, and w hethera publ i c nee d f orr ezoni ng exi s t ed.

### 9

¶21. H er e, the B oar d det erm i ned ef f ect i vel y that no change had occurr ed i n the cha r act er of the nei gh bo rhood an d thatther e w as no publ i c nee d f orr ezoni ng. T he mi nut es of the B oard m eet i ng show ed thr ee con cerns that w ere rai sed by B oard m em bers and l ocal ci t i zens: ( 1) envi r onm ent al conce rns thatthe l and had been cont ami nat ed by a c hemi cal s pi l l i n pr i or year s , ( 2) tr af

f i c conge s t i on, and ( 3) the hi gh dens i ty of r ent al hous es i n the ar ea, w hi ch
w ou l d have a negat i ve i m pacton the us e and e nj oym entof s urr oundi ng pr opert i es. R ounds t one as s ert s thati tcount er ed the f i r s tt w o concerns . Itaddr es s ed the envi r onm ent al
con cerns by h i ri ng a pri vate com pan y to perfo rm env i ronm ental t est s. T ho se t est s, R ounds t one s t at ed, di d notr ai s e s ubs t ant i al conce rns aboutt he sa f ety of the l and, apartf

r om the pr es ence of

ol d r ai l w ay t i es thathad been tr eat ed w i th t oxi c cr eos ot e. A ddi t i onal l y, the C i ty’ s engi neer s had per f orm ed a tr af

f i c s tudy w hi ch, acc or di ng t o R ounds t one, s how ed that the devel opm entw oul d have no m at er i al ef f ecton tr af

f i c conge s t i on. A s t o the thi r d conce rn, R ounds t one contends that w orr i es abou tthe d evelopm ent’ s i m pact on surr ou nd i ng propert i es
w a s a ttr ib u ta b le to c la s s a n d /o r r a c ia l a n im u s . ¶22. I n det erm i ni ng the f actual i s s ues bef

or e i t , the B oar d w as not bound by the r es ul t s of th e e n v iro n m e n ta l t e st o r th e tra ffic stu d y . R a th e r, itw a s fr e e “ to c o n sid e r th e sta tem e n ts expr es s ed by a l l the l andow ner s a tthe hear i ng, a s w el l a s t o c al l upon thei r ow n co m m on know l edge a nd exper i ence i n thei rt ow n. ” B d. of A lderm en of

T ow n of B ay Spr ings v. Je nkins , 423 So. 2d 1323, 1327 ( M i s s . 1982)
. T hi s C our thas s ai d thats uch cons i der at i ons ar e “s ound and pr act i cal ” and s houl d be r es pect ed unl ess t he f i ndi ngs ar e arbi tr ary, c a p ri c io u s , a n d u n re a s o n a b le
. I d.

### 10

¶ 2 3 . H e re , th e B o a rd u se d its c o m m o n k n o w led g e a n d fa m ili a rity w ith its m u n icip a lity in
re a c h in g its d e c isio n . It h e a rd fro m m a n y c iti z e n s w h o stro n g ly o p p o se d th e d e v e lo p m e n t. Fur therm ore, the tr aff

i c stud y it sel f di d n ot necessar i l y d i spel con cerns abou tcon gest i on . T he stud y co nsi dered t w o p ossi ble i ng res s/ egress scenari os. T he firstop t i on “w ou l d incr ease tr af f i c on O l d W as hi ngt on R oad t o an ave r age dai l y cou nt f r om 1317 vehi cl es t o 1937
v e h icle s p e r d a y .” T h a t op tio n w a s n o t rec o m m e n d e d
. T h e se c o n d o p tio n d istrib u ted tra ffic t o m ul t i pl e s tr eet s . O l d W as hi ngt on Road w oul d go f r om 1, 317 t o 1, 627 vehi cl es perday, and K el l y A venue f

r om 1, 518 t o 1 , 673; al s o, tr af f i c on O r i ol e Terr ace w oul d i ncr eas e by 310 vehi cl es perday. T he stud y t hen conc l uded that“[ t ] hes e s tr eet s ar e compar abl e t o other sim il ar a rt erial an d c o ll ec tor streets su ch a s R atcli ff w ith 1 1 0 0 av era g e c ars p er d ay , A u b u rn A v e [.]w ith 3 5 0 0 a v e ra g e c a rs p e r d a y , a n d M ille r A v e [.] w ith 1 9 0 0 a v e ra g e c a rs p e r d a y .” T he s i gni f

i canc e of the traf f i c i ncr eas es underei theropt i on i s debat abl e, how ever . E ven a s l i ghti ncr eas e i n tr af

f i c coul d be s i gni f

i cant , dependi ng upon the ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng thatpart i cul ars tr eetorar ea. O ne B oard m em ber , f orexampl e, s ai d that“onl y one ca rcan tr avel ata t i m e” on O l d W as hi ngt on R oad. F ur ther , R ounds t one acknow l edged a tthe hea r i ng thats om e i ndi vi dual s had di s put ed the ac cur acy of the t raf fi c study on the bas i s thatthe tr a ff ic c o u n te rs h a d n o t b e e n p la c e d in th e ri g h t lo c a tio n s . ¶24. L i ke the C our tof A ppeal s , w e ar e unper s uaded thatr aci al and/ orcl as s ani m us pl ayed
a ro le i n the B o ard ’s de cisi o n . R o u n d ston e h as n o t offered an y p roo f th at th e B o ard ’s d e c is io n w a s d is c ri m in a to ry o r m o tiv a te d b y c la s s , ra c e , o r a n y o th e r a n im u s . ¶ 2 5 . W e find that the B o ard ’s de cisi o n w as n o t arbitrary , ca p ri ciou s, d isc rim in a to ry , ill e g a l,
o r w ith o u t a s u b s ta n tia l b a s is
.

### 11 CO NC L US I ON ¶ 2 6 . W e fin d th a t th e C ity ’s in terp re ta tio n o f its z o n in g o rd in a n c e w a s n o t m a n ife stly
unr eas onabl e and thati t s deci s i on t o deny R ounds t one’ s re zoni ng re ques tw as notarbi tr ary, capr i ci ous , di s cr i m i nator y, i l l egal , orw i thouta s ubs t ant i al bas i s . T her ef or e, w e af

f i r m the ju d g m e n ts o f t h e C ir c u it C o u rto f A d a m s C o u n ty a n d th e C o u rto f A p p e a ls
. ¶ 2 7 . AF F I RM ED . RANDOL P H, P . J . , LA M AR, KI TC HENS , P I ER CE AND KI NG, J J . , CONCUR. CH AND LER, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O PI NI ON J OI NED BY DI CK I NS ON , P . J . CO L E M AN , J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG . CH AN DL E R, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶28. I do notagr ee w i th the maj or i ty’ s anal ys i s . T her ef or e, I r es pect f

ul l y di s s ent . T he C ou r to f Appe a l s ’ d i s s e ntc orr e c t l y f oc us e d on the d e ni a l o f the s i t e - pl a n a pp l i c a t i on and f ound i tunnece s s ary t o deci de the zoni ng i s s ue. In l i keni ng the pr es entcas e t o V in eyard I nves t m ent s, L L C v. Cit y of Madis on , 9 9 9 S o . 2 d 4 3 8 , 4 4 2 (M iss. C t. A p p . 2 0 0 9 ), the C o u rt of A pp eal s’ dis sentop i ned that the ap proval of the si t e plan and subd i vis i on plati s a
m i nis t eri al act , as op po sed to t he qu asi l egis l at i ve decis i on s of rezoning app l i cat i on s. T hu s, beca us e R ounds t one had m etal l zoni ng and bui l di ng r equi r ement s , the deni al of appr oval of th e s ite p la n a n d s u b d iv is io n p la t b y th e B o a rd w a s a n a b u s e o f its d is c re tio n . 

### Roundst one Dev ., LLC v. Cit

y of Natchez , __So . 3d__

_, 2 01 1 W L 5 5 4 7 8 0 5 , at * 9 (M iss
. C t . A pp. 2011)
. C oncl udi ng thatthe deni al o f the rez oni ng di d noti m pactthe appr oval of the
s ubm i t t ed s i t e pl an and s ubdi vi s i on pl at , the di s s entf ound the deni al of

the appl i cat i on t o be d is p o s itiv e . I a g re e w ith th is s o u n d re a s o n in g s e t f o rt h b y J u d g e C a rl to n in h e r d is s e n t.

### 12

¶29. T his C ou rthas dec l ared t hat consi derat i on of buil di ng- perm i ta ppl i cat i ons i s a
m i ni s t er i al deci s i on thatm us tbe appr oved i f al l r equi r ement s ar e met . See T hom ps on v. Ma y fie ld , 20 4 S o. 2d 87 8, 880 (M i ss. 19 67 ) ( ho l ding that “the is suance of [ bu i l ding perm i t s]
w a s p u re ly m in iste ria l an d d id n o t in v o lv e th e e x e rc ise o f d isc re tio n o n the p a rt o f th e C ity C ounci l , s i nce a l l of

the r equi r ement s of

exi s t i ng bui l di ng c odes a nd zoni ng or di nance s had b e e n m e t”) ; V

in eyard , 9 9 9 S o . 2 d a t 4 4 0 -4 1 (h o ld in g th a t th e C ity d id n o t h a v e d isc re tio n to d e n y site b u ild in g p e rm it u n til a re taile r’s p e rm it co u ld b e o b tain e d , sin c e b u ild in g p e rm it appr oval i s a mi ni s t er i al t as k)
. Fur ther , i n B er r y v. E m br ey , 1 2 0 S o . 2 d 1 6 5 , 1 6 7 (1 9 6 0 ), th is C our tr ecogni zed that“bui l di ng and zoni ng r egul at i ons ar e di s t i nctf r om eac h other ” and concl uded thata bui l di ng perm i tthatconf orm ed w i th the bui l di ng r egul at i ons coul d notbe d e n ie d fo r a p ro p o s e d u s e if th e a re a is n o t z o n e d a g a in s t su c h u s e . See V in eyard , 999 So. 2d at440. ¶3 0. T oday w e ar e f ace d w i t h a di f

f er enti s s ue, beca us e thi s cas e conce r ns s i t e- pl an appr oval
. I n H

il l side T errace, L . P. , v. Cit

y o f G u l fport , 18 So. 3d 339, 345 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2009) , the C our tof

A ppeal s aff

i rm ed the C i ty of

G ul f por t ’ s deci s i on t o deny s i t e- pl an a p p ro v a l to a lan d d e v e lo p e r. In tha t ca se , th e d e v e lo p e r w a s se e k in g site-p lan ap p ro v a l “to
c o n stru c t a m u lti -fa m ily h o u sin g d e v e lo p m e n t utilizin g low -in c o m e h o u sin g tax cre d its” in
a B -2 z o n e . I

d. a t 3 4 1 . G u lfp o rt’s C o m p re h e n siv e Z o n in g O rd in a n c e a llo w e d m u lti -fa m ily h o u s in g to b e b u il t in B
- 2 z o n e s u p o n a p p ro v a l b y th e P la n n in g C o m m is s io n . I d. at342. D e sp ite th e lan d d e v e lo p e r m e e tin g th e re q u ire m e n ts o f th e o rd in a n c e , G u lf p o rt r e fu se d to g ran t th e sit e-p lan a p p li ca ti o n du e to po ssible dra inag e issue s si n ce pa rtof the su b d ivisi o n ’s lo c a tio n w a s in a flo o d z o n e . I d. at342-43. A ddi t i onal l y, G ul f por tcons i der ed t es t i m ony that

### 13

the l ow - i ncome hous i ng w oul d r es ul ti n “‘ an atm os pher e f orthe cul t i vat i on of

cr i m e’ ” and th e n e e d fo r in c re a s e d fir e a n d p o lic e p ro te c tio n . I d. a t 3 4 3 -4 4 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls u p h e ld the deni al of

the s i t e- pl an appl i cat i on and conc l uded thatt he C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on w as not
a rb i tr a ry o rc a p r i c i o u s b e c a u s e th e Co mm i s s i o n a n d Co u n c i l c o u l d c o n s i d e rth e i ro wn c o m m o n k n o w le d g e w h e n d e c id in g a m u n ic ip a l o rd e r. I d. a t 3 4 3 -3 4 4 . ¶3 1. M e a nwhi l e , i n O ldCa n to n Hills Ho m e o w n e rs A s s o c ia tio n v . Ma y o r a n d City Council of the Cit y of Jacks on , 749 So. 2d 54, 56 ( M i s s . 1999), thi s C our tcons i der ed a zoni ng cas e i n w hi ch s i t e- pl an appr oval of a pl anned uni tdevel opm entw as “cont i ngentupon the compl et i on of

tw enty- thr ee r equi r ement s . ” Id . at 5 6 . T h e Ja c k so n C ity C o u n c il i n iti a lly
con du ct ed a publ i c hea r i ng atw hi ch the appl i cat i on w as unani m ous l y appr oved, and the d e c is io n w a s a ff

ir m e d b y th e H in d s C o u n ty C ir c u it C o u rt . Id . O n appea l , thi s C our tnot ed th a t s u c h c o n d itio n s w e re th e s ta n d a rd p ra c tic e fo rp la n n e d -u n it d e v e lo p m e n ts . Id . at59. M oreove r, the C ou rtm enti on ed thatpl ann ed-unitdevelopm ents are “s ubj ectt o restri ct i on s” b y th e irv e ry n a tu re . Id . T hi s C our tul t i m at el y af f i r m ed the ci ty counci l ’ s deci s i on t o r ezone th e p ro p e rt y , s ta tin g th a t th e d e c is io n w a s n o t a rb itr a ry , c a p ri c io u s , o r f a ir ly d e b a ta b le
. Id . a t 6 3 . ¶32. T he s i t e- pl an appr oval s i n H il l s ide and O ld

Ca n to n H

ill s ar e di s t i ngui s habl e f

r om the p re s e n t c a s e . H

il l s ide i nvol ved an or di nance thatw as not“Perm i t t ed U s e by R i ght , ” but i ns t ead w as “Perm i t t ed U pon A ppr oval
. ” In otherw or ds , the or di nance expl i ci t l y pr ovi ded fo r d isc re tio n . B u t h e re , the o rd in a n c e p ro v id e s fo r n o su c h d isc re tio n , b u t ra th e r p e rm its
s in g le
- f a m ily h o u s e h o ld s a s m a tte r o f r ig h t. S im ila rl y , O ld Ca n to n H

ill s i nvol ved a p a rticu larty p e o f d e v e lo p m e n t (p lan n e d -u n it d e v e lo p m e n t) th a t n o rm a lly re q u ir e s th a t ce rta in

### 14

condi t i ons ar e s at i s f

i ed, unl i ke the s ubdi vi s i on de vel opm entthati s the s ubj ectof the pr es ent
c a s e . ¶33. I w oul d f

i nd that , w her e the appl i cabl e or di nance pr ovi des no di s cr et i on, s i t e- pl an and subd i vis i on -pl atapp roval s ar e m i nis t eri al funct i on s aki n to ap proval of bui l ding perm i t s. B ui l di ng perm i t s and s i t e pl ans a r e governed by det ai l ed or di nance s . Si m i l art o the i m pr oper deni al of

a bu i l ding per m i ti n V in eyard , the C i ty of

N at chez ’ s r ef

us al t o appr ove R ounds t one’ s s i t e- pl an and s ubdi vi s i on- pl atappl i cat i on unt i l the l and coul d be r ezone d
cons t i tut ed an a rbi tr ary, capr i ci ous deci s i on beyon d t he mi ni s t er i al natur e of s i t e- pl an a p p ro v a l. ¶34. T he m aj or i ty f

i nds that thi s w oul d depr i ve l ocal author i t i es of thei r r i ght t o i nt erpr et zoni ng or di nance s . W hi l e I under s t and the maj or i ty’ s conce rn w i th pr es erving l ocal
a u th o r i t i e s ’ d i s c r e t i o n , th e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f th e p r e s e n tc a s e a r e n o tf a r - r e a c h i n g . T o d a y we a re fa c e d w ith a u n iq u e situ a tio n , in w h ich O -L z o n e s a n d R -1 z o n e s a re v irtu a lly i nt er change abl e, m aki ng i tunnece s s ary f orthe C i ty t o r ezone . I al so d i s agr ee w i th the
m aj or i ty’ s fi ndi ng thatthe or di nance on O
- L di s tr i ct s w as ambi guous . T he or di nance s t at es that “[ i ] ti s i ntended that l and i n [O -L ] d istri ct s w i l lbe re c las sifie d to its a p p ro p ria te
re s id e n tia l, c o m m e rc ia l, a n d in d u s tr ia l c a te g o ry . . . w heneversuch land is s ubdi vi ded in to
urban bui l di ng s i t es . ” C i ty of N at chez Zoni ng O r di nance a nd Subdi vi s i on Regul at i ons I V ( 1) (em p h asis ad d ed ). W h il e the m ajority claim s tha t distri cts ca n b e re classifi ed b efo re s ubdi vi s i on, the l anguage i n t he or di nance m akes i tcl earthatr ezoni ng w i l l happen af t erthe lan d is su b d iv id e d
. S u b d iv isio n into u rb a n b u ild in g sites is reg u late d b y th e “ U se b y R ig h t” lan g u a g e p ro v id e d in th e C ity ’s z o n in g c h a rt. T h e c h a rt sp e c ifi c a lly al l ow s R
- 1 zones and

### 15

O
- L zones “U s e by R i ght ” f ors i ngl e- f

ami l y dw el l i ngs . T her ef or e, si nce the l and has been
s u b d iv id e d , th e C ity m u s t r e c la s s if y th e O -L la n d to R -1 . ¶ 3 5 . F u rth e rm o re , th e z o n in g iss u e n e e d n o t b e re so lv e d , b e c a u se th e a p p ro v a l o f th e site pl an and s ubdi vis i on pl ati s di s pos i t i ve of the ca s e. T he C i ty’ s l ett erf r om M ay 16, 2007, acknow l edged thatther e w er e no z oni ng vi ol at i ons . I n a ddi t i on, s t af f f or the C om m i s s i on s peci f i cal l y s t at ed thatR ounds t one had s at i s f i ed al l s i t e- pl an r ecomm endat i ons and
r equi r ement s . B eca us e appr oval of the s i t e pl an does notr equi r e r ezoni ng, and bec aus e the
curr entzoni ng perm i t s s i ngl e- f ami l y hous ehol ds as a m att erof r i ght , the pr opos ed s i t e pl an c o m p lie s w ith e x is tin g z o n in g a n d b u ild in g o rd in a n c e s . T h u s , n o re z o n in g is n e c e s s a ry . ¶36. I w ou l d fi nd t hat, i n thi s case, t he s i t e- pl an and s ubdi vi s i on- pl ata ppr oval i s a
m i ni s t er i al t as k. T he C i ty of N at chez a rbi tr ar i l y a nd c apr i ci ous l y de ni ed the si t e-pl an and
s ubdi vi s i on- pl atappr oval w i thouta l egal l y val i d r eas on. T her ef or e, I w oul d r ever s e the d e c isio n o f th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls a n d th e tri a l co u rt a n d re m a n d th is c a se to th e c irc u it co u rt. DI CK I NS ON , P . J . , J OI NS T HI S OP I NI ON .