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 8 - CA- 0 0 1 0 4 - S CT M ARK C. M ODAK- TRURA N AND ANI TA K . M ODAK- TRURA N
v. M AYOR HARVEY J

OH NSON, I N H I SOFFICI

AL CA P AC I T Y ON L Y, T HE C I T Y C OUNC

I L OF J AC KS ON, M

I S S I S S I P P I , CA ROL N. S

I M M ONS AND W I LL I AM J . S I M M ONS, DECEAS

ED
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 04/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: BO BBY BU RT D ELAU GH TER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS 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 S : M A R K C
. M O D A K -T R U R A N (P R O S E ) A N IT A M O D A K -T R U R A N (P R O S E ) ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : PI ETER J OH N TEEU W I SS EN CL A I RE BA RK ER H A W K I N S CR A N E D . K I PP RO BERT P. W I SE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 08/ 13/ 2009 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: CO NSOLI DATED W I TH NO. 2 0 0 8 - CA- 0 0 1 0 5 - S CT DANI EL M. BAKER AND KATHERI NE BAKER
v. M AYOR HARVEY J

OH NSON, I N H I SOFFICI

AL CA P AC I T Y ON L Y, AN D T HE C I T Y C OUNC

I L OF J AC KS ON, M

I S S I S S I P P I , AN D C AR OL AN

D WI L L I A M S I MM ON S , DE C E A S ED d / b / a T HE FA I RV I EW I NN

### 2

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 12/ 04/ 2007 TRI AL J UD GE: BO BBY BU RT D ELAU GH TER COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HI NDS 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 S : K A T H E R IN E B A K E R (P R O S E ) DA NI EL M . BA KER ( PRO SE) ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : PI ETER J OH N TEEU W I SS EN CL A I RE BA RK ER H A W K I N S CR A N E D . K I PP RO BERT P. W I SE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 08/ 13/ 2009 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. KI TCHEN S , J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he Jac ks on C i ty C ounci l adopt ed t w o amendm ent s t o the ci ty’ s zoni ng or di nance , all o w ing the F airview Inn , a be d an d brea k fast inn , to o p era te a restau ran t. C ertain n eigh b o rs oppos ed the amendm ent s and appe al ed t o the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty. U l t i m at el y, the ci r cui tcourtuphel d the amendm ent s , and t he opponent s of the amendm ent s have appeal ed t o thi s Court
. Fi ndi ng thatthe amendm ent s cons t i tut e i l l egal spot zon i ng , w e revers e t he cir cuitcou rtand render j ud gm ent her e i n favor of the ap pell ants . F a cts ¶2. T he Fai r vi ew I nn i s l ocat ed i n a r es i dent i al z one i n the B el haven hi s t or i c pr es ervat i on di s tr i cti n the C i ty of

J acks on. A tthe t i m e i n que s t i on, the I nn w as ow ned by W i l l i am and C ar ol Si m m ons , butw as s ol d t o Sharp H os pi t al i ty, LL C , i n 2006. A l though the Fai r vi ew I nn i s s urr ounded by most l y r es i dent i al dw el l i ngs , i ta l s o bor der s c om m er ci al pr opert i es l ocat ed al ong N or th St at e Str eet . T he appe l l ant s , M ark and A ni t a M odak- T ruran a nd D ani el and

### 3

K a th e rin e B a k e r, li v e d ire c tly a c ro ss F a irv iew S tre e t fro m th e In n . A ll fo u r o f th e a p p e llan ts
a re a tto rn e y s a n d h a v e re p re s e n te d th e m s e lv e s th ro u g h o u t th e s e p ro c e e d in g s . ¶ 3
. A ll o f th e s e p ro p e rt ie s a re lo c a te d in a n “ R -2 S in g le -F a m ily a n d T w o -F a m ily R es i dent i al D i s tr i ct . ” A ccor di ng t o the J acks on C i ty Z oni ng O r di nance , T h e p u rp o se o f th is d istric t is to p ro v id e a re a s fo r th e d e v e lo p m e n t o f lo w to m e d iu m d e n sity res id e n tial u se s a n d stru c tu re s. It i s th e in te n t o f th is O r di nance t hatt hes e di s tr i ct s be l ocat ed i n ar eas of the C i ty w her e a pr ot ect ed envi r onm ents ui t abl e f

orm oder at e dens i ty r es i dent i al us e can be pr ovi ded, as w ell as in estab li sh ed m o d era te de n sity reside n ti al a rea s a s a m ea n s to e n su re thei rcont i nuance . Jac k so n , M iss. , Z o n ing O rdin an ce § 6 0 2
. 0 5 (19 7 4 ). ¶ 4
. In 1 9 9 3 , th e C ity g ra n ted th e o w n e rs o f th e F a irv iew In n a p e rm a n e n t u s e p e rm it t o oper at e a “ B ed and Bre akf as tI nn, C l as s B . ” The zoni ng or di nance def i nes a “Bed and B r eakf as tI nn, C l as s B ” as A n O w neroc cupi ed dw el l i ng w hi ch i s the pr i m ary r es i dence of the ow ner and w h ere a p o rt ion o f th e d w ell ing is av ail ab le for sh o rt -t erm lod g ing an d w h ere r ece pt i ons orothers oci al gather i ngs m ay be he l d. M eal s m ay onl y be s erved to lod g ers o r gu ests o f rece p ti o n s an d o ther s oci algather i ngs . J a c k s o n , M is s ., Z o n in g O rd in a n c e § 2 0 2 .1 7 (2 0 0 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). ¶5. I n 2003, the I nn began t o advert i s e i t s el f as a r es t aur ant open t o the gen eral publ i c. T h e In n h a d tak e n th e p o sitio n th a t se rv in g m e a ls to th e p u b lic o n a re se rv a tio n -o n ly b a sis
w oul d qual i f

y a s a “ s oci al ga ther i ng” and w oul d notvi ol at e i t s us e perm i tas a C l as s B bed and br eakf

as ti nn. O n Sept ember22, 2003, the C i ty’ s zoni ng admi ni st rat or not i f i ed the F a irv iew In n v ia le tter th a t itc o u ld n o t o p e ra te su c h a re sta u ra n t u n d e r its c u rre n t u se p e rm it. A ccordi ng t o the l et t er, “i th as nev er been the ci ty’s i ntentthata B ed & B reakf astInn ‘C l ass B ’ be perm i t t ed t o s erve di nneron a ni ght l y bas i s . ” The l ett erw enton t o “ca ut i on [ the I nn]

### 4

agai ns tthe s al e of

r egul ardi nner s t o the publ i c underthe capt i on o f ‘ soci al gather i ngs ’ , as i s onl y perm i t t ed by r es t aur ant s pr oper l y des i gnat ed and ope r at i ng w i thi n the C i ty. ” ¶6
. T w o days l a t e r , a f t e r mee t i ng w i th the owner s of the I nn , the z on i ng a dmi ni s tr a t or
w r ot e anotherl ett er , s t at i ng that“the Fai r vi ew I nn does notcur r ent l y vi ol at e t he t erm s of the Z o n in g O rd in a n c e .” T h e a d m in istra to r w a s n o w o f th e o p in io n th a t “s o c ial g a th e rin g s” c o u ld al s o i ncl ude “s oci al event s w her eby the hos torhos t ess sche dul e [ s i c] an eve ntpr i ort o the actual dat e and make [ s i c] arr angement s w i th the I nn f ors ervi ce t o be pr ovi ded. ” ¶ 7 . In th e m e a n tim e , th e a tto rn e y fo r th e S im m o n se s b e g a n m a k in g o v e rtu re s to th e C ity fo r a m e n d m e n ts to th e z o n in g o rd in a n c e th a t w o u ld a llo w th e F a irv iew In n to se rv e m e a ls t o the publ i c. T he f

i r s tpr opos ed amendm entcr eat ed a new zoni ng def i ni t i on t i t l ed “Bed and B r eakf as tI nn C l as s B w i th R es t aur ant . ” The am endmentpr ovi des Sect i on 2 02
. 17 ( a) B ed and Bre akf as tC l as s B w i th R es t aur ant : A n ow ner occupi ed dw el l i ng, w hi ch i s the pr i m ary r es i dence of the ow nera nd w her e a p o rt ion o f th e d w ell ing is av ail ab le for sh o rt -t erm lod g ing an d w h ere r ece pt i ons orothers i m i l arpr i vat e f unct i ons m ay be he l d. M eal s m ay be s erved t o l odger s , gues t s of r ece pt i ons and otherpr i vate f un ct i ons and the gener al publ i c as fol l ow s : A B ed and B r eakf as tI nn, C l as s B w i th R es t aur ant m ay enga ge i n the pr epar at i on and r et ai l s al e of f ood a nd bever ages , i ncl udi ng the s al e of

al cohol i c bever ages . C us t om er s ar e s erved thei rf ood, orbever ages by a r es t aur antempl oyee a tthe sa m e t abl e atw hi ch s ai d i t ems ar e cons um ed. A dvert i s i ng on l ocal bi l l boar ds i s pr ohi bit ed. T he pr ohi bi t i on w i l l not p re c lu d e , h o w e v e r, m a ili n g s o r ad v e rtise m e n ts in n e w sp a p e rs a n d in n a tio n a l, regi on al , st at e or l ocal travel and t ou ri sm peri od i cal s. ¶8. T he s econd amendm ent governed the us e perm i t s as s oci at ed w i th the new “B ed and B re a k fa s t I n n C la s s B w ith R e s ta u ra n ts .” S ect i on 60 2. 02
. 03 : U ses W hich M ay b e P erm i t t ed as U se Perm i t s: C l as s B B ed and Bre akf as tInn w i th R es t aur ant . I ti s expr es s l y under s t ood that a s epar at e U s e Perm i ti s r equi r ed t o oper at e a r es t aur anti n a C l as s B B ed and

### 5

B re a k fa s t I n n . A ny exis t i ng Cl as s B Bed and Bre akf as tI nns who d et erm i ne thatthey wis h t o oper at e a r es tauranti n conj unct i on w i th thei rC las s B B ed an d B reakf

astInn is [ s i c] p e rm itte d to d o so b

y rig h t su b

ject t o rec eipt o f a s t at ementi ndi cat i ng thi s el ect i on. ( E m phas i s added. ) B eca us e t he Fai r vi ew Inn w as t he onl y C l as s B bed and bre akf as ti n the
c ity , this a m e n d m e n t ef fe c tiv e ly e x e m p ted th e I n n fro m h a v in g to o b tain a n e w u se p e rm it in o rd e r t o o p e ra te a re s ta u ra n t. ¶9. O n J anuary 28, 2004, the C i ty C ounci l br ought the tw o pr opos ed amendm ent s t o the zoni ng or di nance bef

or e the J acks on C i ty Pl anni ng B oar d. A f t era ful l hear i ng, the pl anni ng b o a rd is s u e d a “ n e g a tiv e re c o m m e n d a tio n ” to th e C ity C o u n c il. ¶ 1 0
. D e sp ite th e n e g a tiv e re c o m m e n d a tio n , o n A p ri l 7 , 2 0 0 4 , th e J a c k so n C ity C o u n c il h e ld a p u b li c h ea ri n g o n the a m en d m en ts. F ive c o u n cil m em b ers w ere p res en t: D r. L esli e B u rl M cLem or e, M ar gar etB arr ett - Si m on, B ettye D agner - C ook, B o B r ow n, and B en A l l en. T he law y e rs f o r e a c h sid e w e re g iv e n ten m in u tes ea c h to p re se n t th e ir a rg u m e n ts to th e c o u n c il,
a n d th e c o u n c il h e a rd p u b lic c o m m e n ts fo r a n d a g a in s t th e a m e n d m e n ts . ¶11. T he att orney f

or the Fai r vi ew I nn ar gued that a r es t aur ant w as neede d t o pr ovi de the I nn anothers our ce of

r evenue . H e not ed thatthe pr operty w oul d r emai n i n a r es i dent i al zone and ar gued thatthe I nn had s uf f i ci entparki ng t o handl e any a ddi t i onal tr af f i c. T he att orney
su b m itt e d a w ritten sta tem e n t b y th e F a irv iew In n w h ich c laim e d th a t “[t]h e p ro p o sa l w o u ld sim p ly g iv e F a irv iew th e rig h t t o ch o o se to a d v e rtise it s e x istin g fin e d in in g o ffe rin g d ire c tly (offere d p rese n tl y u n d er it s au tho ri ty to serv e m ea ls t o ‘soc ial g athe ri n g s’) as a ‘res taura n t’ , and w i thoutthe l i m i t at i on of day- ahea d r es ervat i ons . ” A m ong the document s att ache d t o the stat em en t w ere p ictu res a n d p lot p lans o f the In n ’s p rop erty, co p ies o f th e In n ’s l ea ses o f off-

### 6

s tr eetparki ng f

aci l i t i es , l ett er s and pet i t i ons i n s upp orto f the amendm ent s , and the 1993 p e rm a n e n t u se p e rm it. ¶ 1 2
. M r. B a k e r sp o k e a s th e a tto rn e y fo r th e o p p o n e n ts. H e arg u e d tha t th e a m e n d m e n ts
w oul d e f f ect i vel y r ezone the I nn f r om r es i dent i al t o comm er ci al
. M r . B akercont ended that
a re sta u ra n t w a s n o t co m p a tib le w ith th e re sid e n tial c h a ra c te r o f th e n e ig h b o rh o o d , tha t it
w oul d be dam agi ng t o t he surr oundi ng prope r ty ow ner s , t hati tw oul d cr eat e a haz ar d t o the chi l dr en l i vi ng i n the ar ea, thati tw as noti n harm ony w i th the C i ty’ s compre hens i ve pl an, and thati tw oul d i ncr eas e tr af f i c i n the ar ea. M r . Bakera l s o s ubm i t t ed a w r i t t en s t at ement al ong w i th a map of

the ar ea, s i gnatur es of

otherhom eow ner s i n the ar ea w ho oppos ed the amendm ent s , phot ogr aphs depi ct i ng tr af f i c and parki ng pr obl ems on Fai r vi ew St r eet , ads f or the I nn, and the tr ans cr i ptof the pl anni ng boar d hear i ng. ¶13. A tthe cl os e of

the ar gum ent s and publ i c comm ent , the ci ty co un c i l unani m ous l y vot ed 5- 0 t o adoptthe propose d amendm ent s . A ggr i eved, the B aker s and the M odak- T rur ans appea l ed t o the C i r cui tC our tof the Fi r s tJ udi ci al D i s tr i ctof H i nds C ounty. T he tr i al j udge ap p o inted L ee T u rne r as a sp ec ial m aster fo r the c ase . S p ec ial M aster T u rne r fi led a rep o rt
a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n , fin d in g th a t th e am e n d m e n ts a m o u n ted to ill e g a l sp o t zo n in g . C irc u it Ju d g e B o b b y D e lau g h ter re jec ted th e s p e c ial m a ste r’s re c o m m e n d a tio n a n d a ffirm e d th e c ity counci l ’ s adopt i on of

the amendm ent s . Fr om thi s d eci s i on, the B aker s and the M odakT ru ra n s a p p e a l to th is C o u rt. I s s ues ¶14. T he B aker s a nd M odak- T rur ans r ai se vari ou s i ssues abou tt he p ropri et y o f the amendm ent s . T hey ar gue thatthe ci ty counci l ’ s deci s i on t o amend t he zoni ng or di nance ( 1)

### 7

cons t i tut ed i l l egal r ezoni ng; ( 2) r es ul t ed i n i l l egal “s potzoni ng”; ( 3) vi ol at ed thei rdue p roc ess righ ts; (4) w as a rb itrary an d ca p ri ciou s; an d (5) tha t th e a m en d m en ts are
uncons t i tut i onal l y vague. St andard of R evi ew ¶15
. A zoning decis i on w i l l be uph el d o n ap p ea l un less itis “arb itrary , ca p ri ciou s, di s cr i m i nat ory, ori s i l l egal orw i thouta s ubs t ant i al evi dent i ary bas i s . ” T ow n of Flor ence v. Sea L ands, L td. , 759 So. 2d 1221, 1223 ( quot i ng Fair c lot h v. Lyles , 592 So. 2d 941, 943 ( M i s s . 199 1))
. “Ther e i s a pr es um pt i on of val i di ty of

a governi ng body' s enac t m entor
a m e n d m e n t o f a z o n in g o rd in a n c e a n d th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f is o n th e p a rty a ss e rtin g its i nv a l i di t y. ” P e r e zv. G a rde n Is le Cm ty. A ss 'n , 882 So. 2d 217, 219 ( M i s s . 2004) ( quot i ng Ca rp e n terv. City o

f P e ta l, 6 9 9 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 2 (M is s . 1 9 9 7 ))
. ¶16. A n exampl e of

an arbi tr ary ordi s cr i m i nat ory zoni ng deci s i on i s “spotzoni ng. ” I n the pr es entcas e, the s peci al m as t erdet erm i ned thatthe amendm ent s t o the zoni ng or di nance
w er e i nval i d beca us e they r es ul t ed i n i m perm i s s i bl e s potz oni ng. Spotz oni ng i s def i ned as

“ a s ma l l i s l a n d o f

r e l a t i v e l y i n t e n s e u s e s u rr o u n d e d b y a s e a o f l e s s i n t e n s e u s e . ” 2 E. C. Y okl ey, Z oni ng L aw and Pra ct i ce § 13- 2 ( 4th ed. 2000)
. T he t erm has been us ed t o des cr i be
a zon i ng ordi nan ce w hich i s am end ed to “r ecl assi fy[ ] on e or m ore trac ts or lot s f or a use pr oh i bi t e d b y the or i gi na l z on i ng or di na nc e a nd ou tof ha r mony the r e w i t h. ” D re w s v . City of H attiesbu rg , 904 So. 2d 138, 141 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng McW aters v. Cit

y of B iloxi , 591 S o . 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 2 8 (M is s . 1 9 9 1 ))
. ¶17. W hether an act i on w i l l be voi d f or i m perm i ssi bl e s pot zoni ng i s det erm i ned by the p a rt ic u la r c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f e a c h c a s e . I d. S p o t zo n in g h a s b e e n h e ld to b e in v a lid “ w h e n it

### 8

is p rim a rily fo r th e p riv a te in ter e st o f th e o w n e r o f th e p ro p e rty a ffe c ted , an d n o t re late d to th e g e n e ra l p la n fo r t h e c o m m u n ity a s a w h o le .” 2 Y o k le y , supra § 13- 3. I n other w ords, a zoni ng amendm entw hi ch f avor s a par t i cul arl andow neroveradj ace ntl andow ner s w i l l be vi ew ed as an arbi tr ary and di s cr i m i nat ory us e of zoni ng author i ty unl es s ther e i s “s ubs t ant i al evi dence of cha nge i n the nei ghborhood i n or dert o j us t i f y the r ezoni ng of

a s m al l tr actas an amendm enti n keepi ng w i th the compr ehens i ve pl an. ” Id
. a t § 1 3 -4
. ¶1 8. T he C i t y of J acks on i ns i s t s t hatt he am endment s i n quest i on ar e pur e “t ext
amen dmen t s ” a nd no ta r e z on i ng . The c i r c ui tj ud ge a gr e e d, r e a s on i ng tha t“ [ t ] he t ext
a m e n d m e n ts d o n o t m a k e an y ch a n g e s to the C ity ’s z o n in g m a p ,” a n d tha t th e a re a w o u ld
m a in tain its R -2 z o n in g c las sific a tio n . H e a lso c o n c lu d e d th a t th e a m e n d m e n ts “ sim p ly
m odi f y a ‘ us e’ de f

i ni t i on, ” and thatthey w oul d not“ open the pr overbi al fl oo dgat es
u n lea sh in g c o m m e rc ial d e v e lo p m e n t.” Y e t, th e lab e lin g o f a n a c tio n a s a “ tex t am e n d m e n t” does notmake i ts o i f

the C i ty’ s act i ons ef

f ect i vel y r ezone a r es i dent i al pl otf orcomm er ci al
u se . T h is C o u rt h a s re c o g n ize d th a t th e n a m e g iv e n a m u n icip a l a c t d o e s n o t d icta te its
n a tu re . See L uterv. O akhurs t A s s ocs . , L td. , 529 So. 2d 889, 893 ( M i s s . 1988) ( hol di ng that
a “ re s o lu tio n ” w a s in fa c t a n o rd in a n c e ). ¶ 1 9
. In a n a n a lo g o u s c a s e , D rew s v. Cit y of H att iesbu rg , 9 0 4 S o . 2 d 1 3 8 (M iss . 2 0 0 5 ), th is C our ts truck dow n t he H att i es bur g C i ty C ounci l ’ s gr antof s ever al zoni ng var i ance s as i l l egal
s potzoni ng, r ej ect i ng the ci ty’ s ar gum entthatthe var i ance s di d notcons t i tut e a r ezoni ng. I n Dr e ws , the ci ty gr ant ed a de vel opm entcompany si x var i ance s t o the ci ty’ s zoni ng
o rd in a n c e o n a lo t z o n e d B -1
. I d. at 1 4 0
. T h e v a ria n c e s w o u ld h a v e a llo w e d a n in c re a se in b u ild in g h e ig h t fro m 3 5 to 4 5 fe e t an d a n in c re a se in th e s iz e o f a b u ild in g fro m 1 0 ,0 0 0 to

### 9

6 0 ,0 0 0 s q u a re fe e t. I

d . T hi s C our tr ever s ed and r ender ed the ci r cui tcourt ’ s j udgm ent af f i r m i ng the var i ance s , concl udi ng thati l l e ga l s po tz on i ng ha d occurr ed. T he D rew s opi ni on
no t ed that“ser i ou s quest i on s ar i se w hen a vari ance is grant ed to perm i ta use otherw i se pr ohi bi t ed by the or di nan ce; e. g. , a s ervi ce s t at i on orqui ck- s t op gr ocery i n a r es i dent i al di s tr i ct . T he m os tobvi ous dangeri s t hatt he var i ance w i l l be ut i l i zed t o by- pas s pr ocedur al
s af eguar ds r equi r ed f

orval i d amendm ent . ” I d. a t 1 4 1 (q u o tin g R o b e rt C . K h a y a t & D a v id L . R e y n o ld s , Zoni ng Law i n Mis s is s i ppi , 4 5 M iss
. L .J. 3 6 5 , 3 8 3 (1 9 7 4 )). A c c o rd in g to th is C our t , “i t[ w as ] cl earthatthe C i ty of H att i es bur g ha[ d] at t empt ed t o bypas s the s af eguar ds pr ovi ded by the r ezoni ng pr oces s , ” bec aus e the cha nges w er e “s o dr amat i c thatthey
c o n situ te[d ] a re z o n in g to B -3 , tw o lev e ls b e y o n d th e B -1 (p ro fe ss io n a l bu sin e ss d istric t) lo ts i n ques t i on. ” I

d. a t 1 4 1 -4 2
. ¶2 0. Si m i l a r l y, i n the p r e s e ntc a s e , the a mend ment s a l l ow t he Fa i r vi ew I nn t o conduct highl y co m m erci al o p erat i on s w i thin an area r estri ct ed to one - and t w o-f am i l y d w el l i ng s. B ef or e t he am endment s , the onl y us e perm i t s al l ow ed i n R
- 2 zones w er e f orl i m i t ed purpos es
su c h as sc h o o ls, ch u rc h e s, an d g ro u p h o m e s. Z o n in g O rd in a n c e § 6 0 2 .0 2 .3 . H o w e v e r, w ith the addi t i on of

“C l as s B B ed and Bre akf as tw i th R es t aur ant , ” t he Fai r vi ew Inn w as gr ant ed perm i ssi on t o oper at e a ge ner al r es t aur antw i thi n an R
- 2 zone, an ac t i vi ty al l ow ed i n ar eas
zon ed C -3 com m erci al d i stri ct s. In add i t i on , b y al l ow i ng exis t i ng C l ass B bed and breakfast i nns t o oper at e r es t aur ant s “as of r i ght, ” t he amendm ent s exempt ed the Fai r vi ew I nn f r om havi ng t o appl y f

ora us e perm i t . T he speci al m as t ercorr ect l y det erm i ned thatthe
am en d m en ts si g n ifi c a n tl y alt ere d an d ex p an d ed the a cti v it ies p rev iou sly a ll o w ed o n R -2 pr opert i es , and ef

f ect i vel y re zoned the Fai r vi ew I nn f r om r es i dent i al t o comm er ci al pr operty.

### 10

A s i n Dr e ws , the a m e n d m e n ts e ffe c tiv e ly circ u m v e n t th e strin g e n t p ro c e d u ra l re q u ire m e n ts f orr ezoni ng. ¶2 1. M or eover , t he C i t y does notdi s put e t hatt he onl y bus i nes s aff ect ed by t he
a m e n d m e n ts w a s th e F a irv iew In n . In d e e d , the e n tire d e b a te w a s fo c u se d o n th e In n a n d its act i vi t i es . T her e ca n be no di s put e thatthe amendm entw as des i gned t o f avorthe I nn, and
s uch pr ef

er ent i al tr eatm entcons t i tut es i l l egal s potzoni ng becaus e the C i ty has not demonstr at ed “s ubs t ant i al evi dence of change i n the nei ghborhood i n or dert o j us t i f y the rezoni ng o f a smal l tr actas an amendm enti n keepi ng w i th the compr ehens i ve pl an. ” 2 Y o k le y , supra § 13- 4. R egar di ng evi dence of c hange, the ci r cui tcourtobs erved “ther e i s no
s u c h e v id e n c e w h a te v e r.” A t t or neys ’Fees . ¶22
. T he M od ak-T rur ans al so ask this C ou rt t o rem and the case for an aw ard of at t orneys’ f ees a nd c os t s i n c on ne c t i on wi th the i rc l a i m und e rSe c t i on 1 98 3 of Ti t l e 4 2 of

the U ni t ed St at es C ode. T he C i ty as s ert s thatt he M odak- T rur ans neverfi l ed a Sect i on 1983 act i on, but the or i gi nal c om pl ai ntc l ear l y r eques t s r el i ef underthi s f

eder al s t atut e. H ow ever , nei therthe sp e c ial m a ste r n o r th e c irc u it ju d g e e v e r a d d re ss e d th is is su e , a n d th e y w e re n e v e r a sk e d to d o so , b y m o tio n o r o th e rw ise . M o re o v e r, n o p ro o f w a s a d d u c e d o n th is s u b jec t. ¶23. A l though the s peci al m ast er f ou nd thatthe C i ty’ s act i ons cons t i tut ed i l l egal s pot zoni ng, he neve raddr es s ed t he M odak- T rur ans ’ S ect i on 1983 cl ai m . W hen the C i ty obj ect ed to th e sp e c ial m a ste r’s re p o rt a n d a sk e d fo r a h e a rin g o n th e m a tter, th e M o d a k -T ru ra n s d id
n o t ask the c ir cu itco u rtto co n side r th eir fed e ra l c laim o r req u est a h ea ri n g for a det erm i nat i on of

r eas onabl e att orneys ’ f

ees and cos t s . I ns t ead, the M odak- T rur ans r eques t ed

### 11

th a t th e tria l c o u rt a c c e p t th e s p e c ial m a ste r’s re p o rt w ith o u t a h e a rin g . T h e re c o rd is s im p ly devoi d of

any pr oof

of the M odak- T rur ans ’ f

ees orexpens es . B y fai l i ng t o r eques ts uch
r el i ef f r om the ci r cui tcourtand by f ai l i ng t o s ubm i tany pr oof of thei ratt orneys ’ f

ees or
e x p e n se s, th e M o d ak -T rura n s h av e a b an d o n ed an d w aive d th e ir S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 c laim s, a n d th is C o u rt s h o u ld n o t a d d re s s th e is s u e . S e e , e .g ., L am b Constr. Co. v. R enova , 573 So. 2d 1378, 1 3 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 9 0 ) (f

ind ing cro ss-ap p ea l f

o r a tto rn e y s’ fees a n d co sts w ith o u t m eritw h ere there w as n o ev iden ce o f suc h ex p en ses in the re co rd). C oncl usi on ¶24. A l though the C i ty pr ocee ded under the aus pi ces of a “t ext amendm ent , ” the cha nges to th e z o n in g o rd in a n c e e ffe c tiv e ly re z o n e d re sid e n tial p ro p e rty fo r th e so le f a v o r a n d b e n e fit
o f th e F a i r v i e w I n n . S u c h a c t i o n c o n s t i tu t e s i mp e r mi s s i b l e s p o tz o n i n g . T h e r e f o r e , we
r ever s e the ci r cui tcourt ’ s j udgm entaf f i r m i ng the amendm ent s and r enderj udgm enti n f avor
o f t h e a p p e lla n ts . ¶ 2 5 . RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. W A L L E R , C .J ., G R A V E S , P .J ., D I C K I N S O N , R A N D O L P H A N D P I E R C E , J J ., CO NC UR . CA RL S ON , P . J . , DI S S E NT S W I T H S E P AR AT E W RI TT E N O P I NI ON JO I N E D B Y L A M A R A N D C H A N D L E R , JJ.
CA RL S ON , P RE S I DI NG J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 2 6
. I r e sp e c tfu lly d isa g re e w ith th e m a jo rity ’s d e c isio n to re v e rs e a n d re n d e r th e c irc u it
co u rt ’s j u d g m en t affi rm ing the Jac k so n C ity C o u n cil ’s a d o p ti o n o f am en d m en ts t o the C ity ’s
zon i ng ordi nan ces. T he C i ty C ou ncil ’s decis i on w as nei ther arbitrary, capri ci ou s, d isc rim in a to ry , n o r illeg a l, an d w a s s u p p o rte d b y su b sta n tial e v id e n c e . See T ow n of

### 12

Flor ence v. Sea L ands, L td. , 759 So. 2d 1221, 1223 ( M i ss. 2000) ( quot i ng Fair cloth v. Lyles , 5 9 2 S o . 2 d 9 4 1 , 9 4 3 (M iss . 1 9 9 1 )). I d o n o t fin d th e a d o p ted tex t am e n d m e n ts al l ow i ng the Fai r vi ew I nn (I nn ) t o oper at e as a r es t aur antt o be an i ns t ance of i l l egal s pot
z o n in g . F u rth e rm o re , I fin d th a t th e trial ju d g e ’s f in d in g s o f fa c t co n tain e d in h is
m emora ndum opi ni on and or derar e s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence cont ai ned i n the
rec o rd. Stated diff

ere n tl y , I fi n d th at th e tr ial j u d g e’s affi rm an ce of th e C ity C o u n cil ’s deci s i on w as pr operi nas m uch as the C i ty C ounci l ’ s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al
e v id e n c e a n d th u s b e y o n d o u r a u th o rity to d istu rb o n a p p e a l. ¶ 2 7 . In h is fo u rt e e n -p a g e M e m o ra n d u m O p in io n a n d O rd e r, t h e c ir c u it ju d g e s ta te d , i nt er
a lia : It is c le a r t h a t B e lh a v e n w a s , and r em ai ns , zoned R
- 2. F ai r vi ew Inn i s l ocat ed o n th e o u tsk irts o f B e lh a v e n , n e a r th e c o rn e r o f F a irv iew S tre e t an d N o rth S ta te S tre e t. T h e o w n e rs, in fa c t, l e a se a p a rk in g lo t fro m B a p tist H e a lth S y ste m s a d

jac e n t to th e latte r’s c o m m e rc ial b u ild in g situ a ted a t 1 6 0 0 N o rth St at e Str eet( atthe cornerof Fai r vi ew S tr eet ) and par tof the N or th St at e Str eet c o m m e rc ial c o rrid o r. T h e p a rk in g lo t a b u ts th e F a irv iew p ro p e rty a n d c o n n e c ts w i th the bed- and- br eakf as tvi a a gat e and s t eps ( R . 229, 253- 63)
. A ccor di ng t o Fa i r vi e w , thi s s i gn i f i c a nt l y d i mi ni s he s the a mountof tr a f f i c go i ng and c o m in g o n F a irv iew S tre e t, as sh o rt a s th a t dis tan c e is fro m N o rth S tate S tre e t, and ent er i ng the nei ghborhood ( R . 58- 60)
. M or eover , as poi nt ed outby Fai r vi ew ’ s att orney, beca us e of the dec l i ne i n hi gh- vol um e bus i nes s , s uch as w e d d in g s a n d re c e p tio n s, F a irv iew ’s s h ift to se rv in g fifty o r le ss p a tro n s a t a t i m e as a r es t aur antw oul d di m i ni s h, r atherthan i ncr eas e, pa r ki ng, tr af f i c, and o th e r c o n c e rn s [a s e x p re s s e d b y th e a p p e lla n ts ]. M r . M odak- T rur an, one of t he appel l ant s her ei n, and w ho l i ves acr os s the stre e t fro m the F a irv iew In n , in fo rm e d the C o u n c il o f th e p ro b lem s h e a n d h is w i f e had al r eady expe r i ence d w i th semi
- tr ai l ert rucks unl oadi ng on the s tr eet i n f r ontof thei rhous e. H e pr oduced phot ogr aphs s how i ng car s of patr ons l i ni ng both s i des of

Fai r vi ew St r eet , s t at i ng , ‘Parki ng i s def i ni t el y a pr obl em in the d ay . ’ ( R . 12 7 ). M r. D an B ak er sh are d sim il ar info rm ati o n . T h ese w ere al l pr obl ems enc ount er ed before the p assage of the am end m ents .

### Th e Fairv iew Inn advertises th at it accommo dates up to 80 0 g uests at a p rivate 1 

### eve nt, suc h as a r ec eption. htt p:/ /www. fa ir

vie winn. com/j ac kson- mi ss is sippi- wedding-f ac il it y.htm ( la st

vis it ed Au gu st 11 , 20 09 ). 13 W ith re sp e c t to in c re a se d tra ffic c o n c e rn s, C o u n c ilw o m a n M a rg a re t B a rre ttSi m on obs erved thatt ourbus es w er e al r eady i ntrud i ng upon t hatpartof B elha v en in w h ich th e E u d o ra W elty H o u se M u seu m w a s loc ated (R
. 1 3 3 ). R es i dentD on K etner , w ho al s o i s a l aw yeral ong w i th hi s w i f e, C l ai r e, t ol d the C ounci l thati n hi s opi ni on ‘ the Fai r vi ew i s the cr ow n j ew el of B el haven n e ig h b o rh o o d .’ H e sta ted th e re w o u ld n o t b e a n y c h a n g e s to th e p ro p e rty w hi ch i s ‘ very compat i bl e w i th the s tr eetw her e m y f ami l y l i ves . ’ M r . K etner w e n t o n to sa y that, in h is op inion , the p rese n ce o f th e re stau ran t w o u ld incre ase h is pro p erty’s v alue (R
. 7 9 -80 ). C ir cu itJu d g e’s M em o ran d u m O p inion an d O rde r, p p . 1 1 -12 (em p h asis in o ri g inal). ¶ 2 8
. A s fo u n d b y th e c irc u it ju d g e , th e F a irv iew In n is lo c a ted o n th e o u tsk irts o f h isto ric B e lh a v e n n e a r th e c o rn e r o f F a irv iew S tre e t an d N o rth S tate S tre e t. T h e B a p tist H e a lth Syst ems (B H S ) has a bui l di ng l ocat ed at1600 N or th St r eet . T he B H S bui l di ng i s l ocat ed i m m edi at el y t o the w es tof the I nn, w hi ch l eas es an adj ace ntparki ng lotfr om B H S f or patr on par ki ng. T hi s parki ng l otdi m i ni s hes the tr af f i c f l ow on Fai r vi ew St r eetby vi r tue of the f actthatI nn patr ons m ay en t erf r om N or th St at e Str eet , park i n the B H S par ki ng l ot adj ace ntt o the I nn pr operty, and then gai n acc es s t o the I nn pr operty an d t he Inn it sel f by
w al ki ng thr ough a gat e and up s ever al s t eps . The I nn r es t aur ants ervi ces f i f ty orl es s patr ons ata t i m e, w hi ch i s si gni f i cant l y l es s t r af

f i c t han t hatass oci at ed w i th a spec i al event , s uch as
a w eddi ng orr ece pt i on. 1 ¶2 9
. L ikew ise, as n o ted b y the circu it jud g e, the test im o n y o f tw o o f the ap p ell an ts, M ark M odak- T rur an and D an B aker , bef or e t he C ounci l , r evea l ed thatpr obl ems w i th s emi
- tr ai l er trucks unl oadi ng on Fai r vi ew St r eetand patr ons parki ng on Fai r vi ew St r eetdur i ng the

### 14

d a y tim e h o u rs w e re e v id e n t before any of the textam end m ents w ere adop t ed an d b efore Fai r vi ew I nn w as oper at i ng as a r es t aur antopen t o t he publ i c. C i ty C ounci l w om an M ar gar et B arr ett - Si m on not ed atthe hea r i ng bef or e the C i ty C ounci l that , pr i ort o the I nn’ s oper at i on
as a publ i c r es t aur ant , Fai r vi ew Str eeta l r eady w as r ece i vi ng s ubs t ant i al tr af f i c bas ed on t our bus es tr avel i ng t o the Eudora W el ty home i n the B el haven ar ea. A l s o, anotherr es i dent , D on K etner , t es t i f

i ed bef or e the C i ty C ounci l thatthe Fai r vi ew I nn w as “t he crow n j ew el of B e lh a v e n .” H e o p in e d th a t th e ad d iti o n o f th e res tau ra n t at the In n w o u ld b e c o m p a tib le w ith the s cheme of

the s tr eetand perhaps even i ncr eas e hi s pr operty val ue. ¶30
. D eci s i ons of

m uni ci pal zoni ng author i t i es , as l egi s l at i ve dec i s i ons , have a pr es um pt i on
o f v a lid ity
. “ A co m p re h e n siv e zo n in g o rd in a n c e ad o p ted b y a c ity is pr e su m e d to b e ‘w e ll pl anned a nd adopt ed t o be perm anent . ’ ” McW aters v. Cit

y of B iloxi , 591 S o. 2d 824, 827 ( M i s s . 1991) ( quot i ng W oodland Hil

l s Conse r vati on A s s '

n, I nc. v. Cit y of Jacks on , 443 So. 2 d 1 1 7 3 , 1 1 8 0 (M iss. 1 9 8 3 )). T h e m ajority fi n d s in tod ay ’s ca se th at th e C ity C o u n cil ’s act i on am ou nted t o il l egal s po tzon i ng . A s the m aj ori ty ap tl y stat es, “spot zoning” i s a zoni ng amendm entw hi ch i s noti n ha r m ony w i th the compr ehens i ve orw el l
- cons i der ed l and
u s e p la n o f a m u n ic ip a lity
. D rew s v. Cit y of H att iesbu rg , 904 So. 2d 138, 141 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng McW

aters, 5 9 1 S o . 2 d at 82 8 ). ¶31. T his C ou rt has s t at ed, “W e ar e of the opi ni on that al though a zoni ng or di nance or amendm entcr e a t e s i n the c e nt e ro f a l a r ge z on e a s mal l a r e a o ra d i s tr i c td e vo t e d t o a di f f er entus e, i ti s nots potzoni ng i f i ti s enac t ed i n acc or dance w i th a compr ehens i ve zoni ng pl an. ” Ri dg e wood Land C o. v. Sim m ons , 24 3 M iss. 2 3 6 , 2 5 2 , 1 3 7 S o . 2 d 5 3 2 , 5 3 8 (19 6 2 ). I n m y opi ni on, s uch i s t he cas e athand. T he change i n use of t he Fai r vi ew I nn pr operty f r om

### 15

a f aci l i ty open f

orw eddi ngs and r ece pt i ons and f orl odger s t o a f

aci l i ty w i th a di ni ng r oom open t o the g eneral publ i c does notcons t i tut e an a l t er at i on thati s i n di s harm ony w i th the
s urr oundi ng hi s t or i c r es i dent i al ar ea. ¶32. U nl i ke the maj or i ty, I do notf i nd D rew s v. Cit

y of H att iesbu rg , 9 04 S o. 2 d 1 38 (M i ss. 2005) , t o be a nal ogous t o the ca s e s ub j udi ce . In Dr e ws , the C ity o f H a tti e sb u rg g ra n ted six
var i ance s t o the ci ty’ s zoni ng ordi nance t o L ee M edi cal D evel opm ent , L L C , f ora l otzoned B -1 , p ro fe s s io n a l b u s in e s s d is tr ic t. I d. at140. T w o of

the var i ance s w oul d have a l l ow ed f or an i ncr eas e i n bui l ding h ei gh tfr om thi r ty- f i ve t o f or ty- f i ve f eetand an i ncr eas e i n the s i ze
o f a b u ild in g fr o m 1 0 ,0 0 0 to 6 0 ,0 0 0 s q u a re fe e t. I d . T h ese v arian ce s in h eigh t and sq u are fo o ta g e p re v io u s ly h a d b e e n d e n ie d b y th e H a ttie s b u rg B o a rd o f A d ju s tm e n ts . I

d. T h is C o u rt hel d thatthe pr opos ed var i ance s w er e “s o dr amat i c thatthey cons t i tut e[ d] a r ezoni ng t o B
- 3, tw o l evel s beyond the B
- 1 ( pr of es s i onal bus i nes s di s tr i ct ) l ot s i n ques t i on. ” I d. a t 1 4 1 . T h is C our tr ej ect ed the pr emi s e thatthes e pr opos ed cha ng es w ere mi nordepartur es f r om the
s c o p e a n d in te n t o f t h e p ro fe s s io n a l b u s in e s s d is tr ic t c la s s if ic a tio n . Id
. at142. ¶33. I a m of

the f i r m opi ni on thatthe change i n us e of the Fai r vi ew I nn fr om a spec i al event s venue t o a r es t aur anthar dl y cons t i tut es the type of dra m at i c phys i cal change as s een in Dr e ws , w her ei n t he pr opos ed var i ance s w oul d have vas t l y changed the s i ze of the bui l di ng
s om e 50, 000 s quar e f

eetoverthe maxi m um s quar e f oot age f ora pr operty zoned i n the p ro fe ss io n a l b u sin e ss d istric t, an d w o u ld h a v e se rv e d to re z o n e th e a re a tw o lev e ls a b o v e its
or i gi nal B
- 1 cl as s i f

i cat i on. ¶ 3 4
. T h e m a

jo rity lab e ls th e u se o f th e I n n a s a r e s ta u ra n t a s “ h ig h ly c o m m e rc ial” in contr as tt o the s urr oundi ng pr opert i es and s t at es t hatt he use of the pr operty by the gene r al

### 16

publ i c r emoves i tf

r om an R
- 2 cl as s i f

i cat i on ( on e-f

am i l y an d tw o-f

am i l y resi den t i al zon e) and ef f ect i vel y cr eat es a C
- 3 com m erci al pr operty w i thi n a r es i dent i al ar ea. Y etthe adopt ed
am end m ents al l ow i ng forpu bli c dini ng i n ad dit i on t o p ri vate events are nota use-chang e so
s ubs t ant i al as t o cons t i tut e a r ezoni ng. I ts i m pl y does notch ange t he cha r act erof the pr operty s ubs t ant i al l y a s t o c r eat e di s harm ony w i th the nei ghbor i ng pr opert i es . Subst ant i al evi dence show s t hatt he pr i m ary obj ect i ons of the M odak- T rur ans and the B aker s ( r egar di ng th e im p a c t o f a re sta u ra n t o n th e s a fe ty a n d tra ffic flo w o f F a irv iew S tre e t) a c tu a lly w o u ld be di m i ni s hed by the servi ce of f i f ty orl es s patr ons atone s eat i ng ver s us the hundr eds of gu est s served food an d alcoho l atw edd i ng recept i on s. ¶ 3 5 . I s im p ly c a n n o t fin d th a t th e o p e n in g o f a d in in g s e rv ice to th e p u b lic in s u c h sm a ll
num ber s i s noti n acc or dance w i th the compre hens i ve l and- us e pl an of the muni ci pal i ty, and
a s s u c h , the C ity C o u n c il’s ad o p tio n o f th e am e n d m e n ts sh o u ld sta n d . “T h e C o u rts s h o u ld notcons t i tut e themsel ves as a Z oni ng Boar d f ora m uni ci pal i ty. ” McW aters v. Cit

y of B iloxi , 591 So. 2d 824, 828 ( M i s s . 1991) ( quot i ng W es t m insterP r es byterian Church v. Cit y of Jacks on , 2 5 3 M iss . 4 9 5 , 1 7 6 S o . 2 d 2 6 7 , 2 7 2 (1 9 6 5 )). T h is C o u rt fu rth e r sta ted in B ar nes
v. B o a rdo

f S u p e rv iso rs, D eS o to Co u n ty , 553 So. 2d 508 (M i s s . 1989) , “[ w ] hat everm ay be th e p e rso n a l op in io n o f th e jud g e s o f a n a p p e a l co u rt o n z o n in g , the c o u rt c a n n o t su b stitu te i t s o w n j ud gmen ta s t o the wi s do m ors ou nd ne s s o f the muni c i pa l i ty' s act i on. ” I d . at510 ( ci t i ng Moo re v. Madison Cou n t y B d. of Su

pervisors , 2 2 7 S o . 2 d 8 6 2 (M iss. 1 9 6 9 )). ¶ 3 6
. A d d iti o n a lly , th e p ro c e d u ra l h isto ry o f th is c a se is stro n g e v id e n c e th a t th is is a fa irly debat abl e i s s ue. A s t he maj or i ty r ecount s , the C i ty’ s zoni ng admi ni s tr at orf i r s tnot i f i ed the Fai r vi ew I nn in a S ept ember22, 2003, l ett erthati tcoul d notoper at e as a r es t aur antunder

### 17

t he Cl a s s B Bed a nd Br e a kf a s tc l a s s i f

i c a t i on . A f

t e rmee t i ng wi th the I nn ’ s o w ne r s , t he zoni ng admi ni s tr at orw r ot e t o the I nn agai n t o advi s e thati tw as notv i ol at i ng the t erm s of the zoni ng or di nance by oper at i ng t he r es t aur anton a r es ervat i on- onl y bas i s . T he att orney f orthe Fai r vi ew I nn di s cus s ed pr opos ed change s t o the zoni ng or di nance thatw oul d al l ow fo r se rv ice to the g e n e ra l pu b lic w ith o u t p rio r re se rv a tio n s. O n Ja n u a ry 2 8 , 2 0 0 4 , the C ity C ounci l br oughtbef

or e the J acks on C i ty Pl anni ng B oar d pr opos ed t extamendm ent s that
w ou l d m ake o perat i ng a res t aurantop en to the g eneral pu bli c a perm i ssi ble use of a C l ass B B ed and Bre akf

as t . Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng on the mat t er , the Pl anni ng Boar d i s s ued a ne gat i ve
re c o m m e n d a tio n to th e C ity C o u n c il a s to a d o p tin g th e se p ro p o se d c h a n g e s. A fte r a p u b lic hear i ng bef

or e the J acks on C i ty C ounci l , the C ounci l di s agr eed w i th the Pl anni ng B oar d and vot ed un a ni mous l y ( 5- 0) t o a do ptthe Cl a s s B B e d a nd Br e a kf a s tI nn w i th Res t a ur ant amendm ent s . T he M odak- T rur ans and the B akers app eal ed t o ci r cui tcourt , and the tr i al ju d g e a p p o in te d a s p e c ial m a ste r, w h o iss u e d a re p o rt a n d re c o m m e n d a tio n to th e c irc u it ju d g e , fin d in g th a t th e C ity C o u n c il’s a c tio n s a m o u n ted to ill e g a l sp o t zo n in g . T h e c irc u it j udge r ej ect ed hi s dul y- appoi nt ed s peci al m as t er ’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on and af f i r m ed the C i ty’s C ounci l ’ s adopt i on of the zoni ng amendm ent s . T hus , i n m y opi ni on, the
a fo re m e n tio n e d p ro c e d u ra l h is to ry o f t h is c a s e is th e e p ito m e o f “ fa ir ly d e b a ta b le .” ¶3 7. W her e t he poi ntati s s ue i s “f ai r l y de ba t a bl e , ” we wi l l n otdi s turb t he zoni ng
a u th o ri ty ' s a c tio n . D r e w s v. City o f Ha ttie s b u r

g , 904 So. 2d 138, 140 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng P e re z v. G a rde n Is le Cm ty. A ss 'n , 8 8 2 S o . 2 d 2 1 7 , 2 1 9 (M iss . 2 0 0 4 ); Car penterv. Cit

y of P etal , 6 9 9 S o . 2 d 9 2 8 , 9 3 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 7 )). “ T h a t w h ich is ‘[f]airly d e b a tab le’ is th e a n tith e sis of arbi tr ary and capr i ci ous . ” Lim be r t v. Mis s . U

ni v. f orW om e n Alum nae Ass '

n, I nc . 998

### 18

So. 2d 993, 1002 ( M i s s . 2008) ( quot i ng T ow n of Flor ence v. Sea L ands, L td. , 759 So. 2d 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 0 ); Saun ders v. Cit y of Jacks on , 51 1 S o . 2d 90 2 , 90 6 (M iss. 1 9 8 7 )). ¶3 8
. F o r al l the rea so n s st ated , I w o u ld affi rm th e circu itco u rt ’s affi rm an ce of th e C ity ’s C ounci l ’ s adopt i on of

the zoni ng amen dm ent s i n thi s cas e. B eca us e the maj or i ty f i nds
o th e rw ise , I m u st re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. LA M AR AND CHANDL ER , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.