Opinion ID: 862405
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the commission on marine resources decision

Text: I. WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON MARINE RESOURCES INCORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE ENACTMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI GAMING CONTROL ACT WORKED A CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA THAT WOULD JUSTIFY REZONING THE SITE UNDER THE CHANGE OR MISTAKE DOCTRINE ¶24. Pine Hills sought and received an adjustment to the Mississippi Coastal Program's wetland use plan, allowing the site designation to be changed from a General Use G district to a conditional Water Dependent Industry I designation. The Coastal Program's wetland use plan, last updated in 1988, makes no provision for casino development. The DMR staff recommendation, although expressly refusing to endorse Pine Hills' proposal, had advised that the developer seek a conditional I designation, stating that [c]onditional considerations would allow for an 'I' designation for the life of the project or until the MCP would be revised to reflect a 'Casino' district. ¶25. The citizens groups first contend that the chancellor and the Marine Resources Commission erred in not applying the change or mistake rule of municipal zoning to the decision in allowing a change in the Coastal Wetlands Use Plan to accommodate Pine Hills' casino development plan. In response, Pine Hills argues that municipal zoning law is inapplicable. The Marine Resources Commission, in defense of its decision, further asserts that municipal zoning law has not been identified by the State as applicable to the Mississippi Coastal Program, rather, it has been limited to matters of local government zoning; that the Program has its own set of decision factors which are considered when balancing the often competing interests of wetlands preservation and public trust land use which would be confounded by the judicial application of the change or mistake rule; and the Commission would have violated its own regulations had it determined that municipal zoning rules were part of the Mississippi Coastal Program. ¶26. The Mississippi Coastal Progam provides its own detailed factors to consider in determining whether a requested adjustment to the wetlands use plan should be allowed. According to the Coastal Program, whether a change may be made is within the discretion of the Mississippi Commission on Wildlife Conservation, based on the findings and recommendations of its subdivisions, the Bureau of Marine Resources and the Department of Wildlife Conservation. Approval of a proposed adjustment, actually given by the appropriate subdivision, must be made on one or more of the following criteria: i. No significant environmental impacts would occur as a result of the use allowed, no feasible, alternative sites in the use designation being requested are available, the general public as well as governmental entities were notified of the activity, no significant conflicts with surrounding uses or public access to coastal wetlands would occur and the activity does not adversely affect the public interest in wetlands protection; ii. There is a significant public benefit in the activity, impacts to public access and adverse environmental impacts have been minimized, and the general public as well as governmental entities were notified of the project, and a public hearing was held; or iii. The adjustment would be temporary in order to allow a temporary activity in the public interest with the adjustment occurring in a prescribed period set by MCWC at the end of which the area would revert to the original use designation. ¶27. The change or mistake rule of municipal zoning is based on the presumption that 'the original zoning is well planned and designed to be permanent. Board of Aldermen v. Conerly, 509 So. 2d 877, 883 (Miss. 1987)(quoting Martinson v. City of Jackson, 215 So. 2d 414, 417 (Miss. 1968)). Thus, before a zoning board reclassifies property from one zoning classification to another, there must be proof either (1) that there was a mistake in the original zoning, or (2) that the character of the neighborhood has changed to such an extent as to justify reclassification, and that there was a public need for rezoning. Conerly, 509 So. 2d at 883 (footnote omitted) (emphasis in original). Nothing in Miss. Code Ann. §§ 17-1-1 to -39 (1995 & Supp. 1998), which govern zoning, land use and subdivision regulation, local government provisions that are common to counties and municipalities, suggests that principles of municipal zoning should be applicable outside this specific context. ¶28. There also is a presumption that zones established pursuant to municipal zoning ordinances are wellplanned and designed to be permanent. Martinson, 215 So. 2d at 417 (citation omitted). In contrast, the wetlands use plan was designed as a flexible tool for the general management of the State's coastal wetland areas in keeping with the policies favoring the preservation of natural wetlands except where a specific alteration of the area would serve a higher public interest and allowing for reasonable industrial expansion of the waterfront and efficient utilization of waterfront industrial sites so that suitable sites are conserved for water dependent industries. Miss. Code Ann. §§ 49-27-3 (1990) and 57-15-6(1)(a). Thus, the goals of municipal zoning and the wetlands use plan may not be as compatible as the citizens groups urge. ¶29. Nevertheless, the citizens groups rely on a 1996 report to the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, McLaughlin and Hess, Casino Gaming on Public Waters: A Summary of Laws and Policies Governing Casino Development in Mississippi's Coastal Zone and Recommendations for Their Improvement to support their contention that the Commission should have employed the change or mistake doctrine. The McLaughlin/Hess report recommends that the Coastal Use Program be amended to require a showing of change or mistake before making adjustments to the use plan. However, the citizens groups, in advocating their position that the Commission should have employed the rule in considering Pine Hills' permits, overlook two points. First, the report clearly states: Finally, there is no reason that all adjustments to use designations in the coastal program have to meet the mistake or change in circumstances test. In those instances where the adjustment pertains either to an undeveloped coastal area or a use zone located entirely seaward of the coast, a court would probably find less need to apply the test. Under such circumstances, there would be no neighbors to protect. However, this exception would clearly not apply when the adjustment allows formerly prohibited uses in developed coastal areas. The area in question is an undeveloped area and the part of the proposed development project in question, for all practical purposes (that is, except for the hotel and parking lots), is entirely seaward from the coast. Moreover, even though gaming is a new use of the area, the specific activities for which the permits are sought, including construction of piers, docks and moorings, and reasonable dredging and filling to accommodate those uses, are permissible under the General Use G designation previously assigned to the site at issue. Thus, even following the recommendation of the 1996 report, the change or mistake rule would not be applicable to the Pine Hills site. Moreover, Mississippi and Maryland are among the very few jurisdictions which follow the change or mistake doctrine. See Palermo Land Co. v. Planning Comm'n, 561 So. 2d 482, 489 (La. 1990)(again refusing to adopt the change or mistake rule, the Louisiana Supreme Court noted that it had been rejected in the majority of jurisdictions which have considered it). Thus, given the interplay between state and federal law inherent in the coastal zone management program, we cannot extend the rule to govern critical policy making which requires the co-operation of a panoply of federal and state regulatory agencies. II. WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON MARINE RESOURCES REJECTED ITS EXPERT STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AGAINST THIS PROJECT WITHOUT SUFFICIENT FACTUAL FINDINGS FOR ITS CONCLUSIONS, AND ITS ACTION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ¶30. Citing Marine Resources staff concerns about the impact of the project on the wetlands ecology, and alleging availability of alternative sites, public opposition to the plan, conflicts with surrounding land uses and adverse effects upon public interest in wetlands protection, the citizens groups next assert that the Commission's decision to grant a use adjustment changing the site in question from G, general use area, to I, industrial use area, was unsupported by any substantive findings on the agency's decision criteria, and thus was arbitrary and capricious. ¶31. The Bureau of Marine Resources staff opinion acknowledged that: To date, the DMR has not recommended any use plan adjustments for casino developments in a G district. Nonetheless, 20 permits have been issued by the DMR authorizing casino development within the scope of the existing Mississippi Coastal Program. The public interest related to casino development on the coast has been and continues to be served by this Department and the MCP. Concerns raised by the staff about future development in the area, secondary use development and environmental impact were raised also by the citizens groups in their appeal. The competing, albeit not necessarily incompatible, economic and environmental interests of coastal development form the basis of the controversy between the citizens groups and Pine Hills. Grant of the permits to Pine Hills was contingent upon the satisfaction of a variety of mitigating conditions and provisions, which the chancellor found were reasonably designed to protect the wetlands and other environmental interests. Arbitrary means fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure. An act is arbitrary when it is done without adequately determining principle; not done according to reason or judgment, but depending upon the will alone,-- absolute in power, tyrannical, despotic, nonrational,--implying either lack of understanding of or disregard for the fundamental things. Capricious means freakish, fickle, or arbitrary. An act is capricious when it is done without reason, in a whimsical manner, implying either a lack of understanding or of a disregard for the surrounding facts and settled controlling principles .... [citation omitted]. McGowan v. Mississippi State Oil & Gas Bd., 604 So. 2d 312, 322 (Miss. 1992) (quoting Mississippi State Dep't of Health v. Southwest Miss. Regional Medical Center, 580 So. 2d 1238, 1240 (Miss. 1991)). Given the deference this Court affords agencies in interpreting their own regulations, we do not find that the Commission on Marine Resources, which has followed closely its own regulations and worked in conjunction with other state agencies in granting the conditional use adjustment and permits necessary for Pine Hills to move forward with its development plan, acted arbitrarily or capriciously. III. WHETHER THE COMMISSION ON MARINE RESOURCES DENIED APPELLANTS OF DUE PROCESS OF LAW ¶32. In their final assignment of error, relying on Thrash v. Mayor of Jackson, 498 So. 2d 801 (Miss. 1986), the citizens groups assert that they were denied due process of law by the Commission's failure to allow them to address their concerns at the August 20, 1996, meeting where their petition for reconsideration was denied. As the record amply documents, public notice has been provided at every step of the process and the citizens groups actively participated in the Commission's proceedings through their letter writing campaigns, their various written complaints and their appearances at public meetings. Further, neither in the record nor in the citizens groups' brief is there any suggestion of what witnesses or testimony they might have presented at the meeting. In Thrash, where we found that opponents to a rezoning decision had received ample notice of all proceedings and an opportunity to be heard, it was noted, as in the case sub judice, that no logical argument or authority in support thereof had been presented to support their due process argument. Id. at 807. Further, provisions of the Coastal Program governing the reconsideration and appeal of permit decisions state that when such a request is considered, the Commission may secure any additional information it deems necessary, either through DWC/BMR or through testimony from interested parties. From the argument presented, we cannot say that any alleged due process rights of the citizens groups were violated.