Opinion ID: 1860496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Whether the circuit court applied the appropriate standard of review.

Text: ¶ 9. The Town argues that the circuit court erroneously concluded that the dispositive issue on the special exception petition was whether there was public need. The Town further avers that the circuit court should have required the County to show more evidence for an issuance of a special exception other than the argument of public need. The Town relies on Section 2.1 of the Town of Prentiss's zoning ordinance, which sets out the type of developments that are allowed in a R-1 Single Family Residential District. The zoning ordinance further outlines other uses that may be allowed by special exception, which do not include governmental buildings such as the proposed chancery court building. Because the ordinance does not set out public need as the criteria by which any of the uses are to be permitted by special exception, the Town argues that the circuit court erred in allowing the special exception. This argument is also without merit. ¶ 10. The record reveals that the circuit court stated that public use was one of the criteria identified by the zoning ordinance as subject to special exception, following a public hearing and approval by the Zoning Adjustment Board, all of which took place here. The circuit court then found that the County had to prove its case as to the compelling need for the exception by clear and convincing evidence and that the County has done this. Furthermore, the circuit court found that the decision of the Town was based on factors other than substantial evidence and that its decision was arbitrary and capricious, which required a reversal. ¶ 11. This Court has established a longsettled standard of review for appeals from municipalities. In McWaters v. City of Biloxi, 591 So.2d 824, 827 (Miss.1991), this Court stated that the party challenging the governing body bears the burden of proof showing that the decision rendered was `arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, or beyond legal authority of the city board, or unsupported by substantial evidence.' In the case at bar, the circuit court thoroughly reviewed the evidence presented by both sides at the hearing and concluded that the testimony offered by the County was clear and convincing evidence, even in the face of the Town giving the County only ten minutes to make its case. ¶ 12. The County's evidence included testimony from witnesses about the pressing need for additional space and the crowded conditions in the present facilities, as well as the existence of a disastrous fire hazard. On the other hand, the Town proffered no evidence other than the general concerns of one resident and the critiques of two more residents that the County should build its courthouse somewhere else. Therefore, the circuit court was correct in finding that the decision of the Town was not based on substantial evidence. ¶ 13. The circuit court further held that the decision denying the special exception was arbitrary and capricious. The court noted the comments and actions of the Town toward the County's plan, its refusal to even grant a hearing until compelled to do so by the Attorney General's office, its refusal to allow the County any reasonable time to make its case, and its decision to deny the County's petition without evidence or explanation proves that the Town's decision was arbitrary, capricious, and not based upon substantial evidence. For these reasons, we conclude that the circuit court applied the correct standard of review and that the actions of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen were in fact arbitrary, capricious and not based on substantial evidence.