Opinion ID: 1697758
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Compliance with the comprehensive plan.

Text: ¶ 15. Bridge contends that the future land-use map contained in the comprehensive plan provides the clearest guidance for contemplated future development of the subject property. Bridge argues that the zoning ordinance should be in compliance with the comprehensive plan at the time the zoning ordinance is passed. He argues that the City is rewriting the ordinance to comply with only one of the four elements of the comprehensive plan. As authority, Bridge relies on Mississippi Code Annotated Section 17-1-1 (Rev. 2003), which sets forth the definition of a comprehensive plan (including, as a minimum, the goals and objectives, land-use plan, transportation plan, and community-facilities plan) and Mississippi Code Annotated Section 17-1-9 (Rev.2003) which states, in part, that [z]oning regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan. Therefore, Bridge argues that the trial court erred by finding that the rezoning was in compliance with the comprehensive plan. ¶ 16. The City contends that the rezoning was consistent with the goals of the comprehensive plan. In addition, the City argues that it is not required to amend its future land-use plan before amending the zoning ordinance. Further, the City contends that Bridge bases his argument on the fact that the future land-use map in the 2004 comprehensive plan shows the property as RB. ¶ 17. The trial court stated: Zoning regulations must be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan[.] Sec. 17-1-9, Miss.Code Ann. (1972). The Comprehensive Plan of the City of Oxford of October 7, 2004 clearly places as a priority the preservation of the physical character and social fabric of Oxford neighborhoods. The action of the Board of Aldermen in rezoning Price Street was compatible with the purposes and goals of the comprehensive plan. ¶ 18. We find that the record reveals that the City's comprehensive plan was not amended to comply with the rezoning of a portion of the Price Street neighborhood from RB property to R1A property. At the hearing, the City admitted that the comprehensive plan was not amended to comply with the zoning change, however, the City maintained that it would amend the comprehensive plan if the zoning change was permitted. ¶ 19. We find that the zoning statutes do not specify that a future land-use map, which is part of a comprehensive plan, must be amended before a zoning ordinance amendment. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 17-1-1 to -39 (Rev. 2003) provides for amendments and changes to be made to comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. Furthermore, Mississippi Code Annotated Section 17-1-11(1)(a) provides that a governing authority of a municipality and county may provide for the amendment of a comprehensive plan. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 17-1-11(2) provides, in part, that the governing authority of each municipality and county may adopt, amend and enforce the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance after a public hearing as provided by Section 17-1-15. Further, Mississippi Code Annotated Section 17-1-15 provides that [t]he governing authority of each municipality and county shall provide for the manner in which the comprehensive plan, zoning ordinance (including the official zoning map) ... shall be determined, established and enforced, and from time to time, amended, supplemented or changed. See also Miss.Code Ann. § 17-1-17 (Rev. 2003). The statutes contemplate necessary amendments to comprehensive plans and zoning ordinances. ¶ 20. Bridge also argues that the City, in effect, is rewriting the ordinance to state that the zoning regulations should be made in accordance with one of the four elements of the comprehensive plan. Indeed, the City argues that the rezoning was consistent with the goals as set forth in the comprehensive plan. We agree. ¶ 21. We find that the lots in the Price Street neighborhood at issue are all part of the Neighborhood Conservation Zone as specified in the City's 2004 comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan set forth the community character and its perspective and stated that [m]aintaining and enhancing the vibrant physical and social character of Oxford is the challenge at the core of this planning effort. Further, the comprehensive plan sets forth the Oxford Guiding Principles which establish six fundamental urban designs and planning principles for Oxford's future growth. The first principle is to [r]ecognize Oxford's historic ways of town building and use those traditions to provide a framework for future growth. The goal of the comprehensive plan is to [c]onserve and enhance those attributes that define Oxford's special community character and the cultural heritage of Oxford's historic neighborhoods. In addition, the objective for neighborhoods is to [p]rotect the physical character and social fabric of Oxford's neighborhoods. We find that the rezoning is in keeping with the comprehensive plan, or at the very least, the matter is fairly debatable. ¶ 22. While Bridge contends that the City is rewriting the comprehensive plan to include only one of the four elements, the goals and objectives, he fails to contemplate the amendment process permitted by statute. Further, he asks this Court to consider only one part of the comprehensive plan, that being the land-use plan. Notwithstanding his argument and without reiterating the previous discussion of the issue of mistake in Section I and the statements of the Board members, we find that Bridge's argument fails to recognize that, among other things, the Board made a mistake in zoning which necessitated a change in the zoning ordinance. At the time the 2004 comprehensive plan was adopted, the comprehensive plan appeared to be in compliance with the zoning regulations. Once the Board realized the mistake, it began to rectify it. Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err by finding that the rezoning is compatible with the comprehensive plan.