Opinion ID: 2535246
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Spot-Zoning

Text: ¶ 42. Thomas argues that the trial court erred by affirming the board's rezoning because it constituted spot-zoning. Thomas contends that the rezoning was for no other reason than to favor Aldridge. The Board contends that it did not engage in spot-zoning, because it found a public need for the rezoning and, the rezoning was for the betterment of Panola County, not only Aldridge. We agree with the Board. ¶ 43. On the issue of spot-zoning, the trial court stated: The Appellant, Lent Thomas, Jr., claims that the rezoning and the special exception for the operation of a scrap metal business constitutes impermissible spot zoning. Impermissible spot zoning occurs when a Board rezones a particular spot which is not in character with the zoning of the surrounding properties. McKibben v. City of Jackson [,] 193 So.2d 741 (Miss.1967). The Panola County Zoning Ordinance gives to the Land Development Commission and the Board of Supervisors the authority to make a special exception for scrap metal collection or junk yard on property located in an industrial zone if controlled as to number, area, location or relation to the neighborhood, would promote public health, safety welfare, morals, order, comfort, convenience, appearance, prosperity or general welfare. This Court must review the findings of the Board of Supervisors and grant a presumption of validity and whether or not the issue is fairly debatable. Appellant Thomas claims that the special exception and the change in zoning from agricultural benefit only Aldridge and his company and is therefore spot zoning.... Viewed under the above standards, the record as a whole supports the finding of the Board of Supervisors by a preponderance of the evidence. The Land Commission and the Board of Supervisors placed limitations as to time, use, no burnings, fence, all of which indicates a considered judgment rather than an arbitrary and capricious discriminatory, illegal act or an act not supported by substantial evidence. This court cannot overturn the Board and judicially call their action spot zoning.... ¶ 44. This Court has found a distinction between spot-zoning and a zoning ordinance that has been validly amended by a governing body. McKibben v. City of Jackson, 193 So.2d 741, 744 (Miss. 1967). The term `spot zoning' is ordinarily used where a zoning ordinance is amended reclassifying one or more tracts or lots for a use prohibited by the original zoning ordinance and out of harmony therewith. Id. The specific facts of each case dictate whether an amendment to the ordinance is considered void. Id. The caselaw consistently has invalidated zoning ordinances on the basis of spot-zoning, where the zoning ordinances were designed `to favor' someone. Id. See 1 Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice §§ 8-1 to 8-3 (3d ed. 1965). Recently, this Court stated an example of an arbitrary or discriminatory zoning decision is `spot zoning.' Modak-Truran v. Johnson, 18 So.3d 206, 209-10 (Miss.2009). This Court has defined spot-zoning as a small island of relatively intense use surrounded by a sea of less intense use. Id. (quoting 2 E.C. Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice § 13-2 (4th ed. 2000)). However [t]he mere fact that an area is small and is zoned at the request of a single owner and is of greater benefit to him than to others does not make out a case of spot zoning if there is a public need for it or a compelling reason for it. Cockrell v. Panola County Bd. of Supervisors, 950 So.2d 1086, 1097 (Miss. Ct.App.2007) (quoting 2 E.C. Yokley, Zoning Law and Practice § 13-5 (4th ed. 1978)). Likewise, this Court has stated that [w]e are of the opinion that although a zoning ordinance or amendment creates in the center of a large zone a small area or a district devoted to a different use, it is not spot zoning if it is enacted in accordance with a comprehensive zoning plan. Ridgewood Land Co. v. Simmons, 243 Miss. 236, 252, 137 So.2d 532, 538 (1962). ¶ 45. In order to grant the rezoning, the Board determined that a public need existed for the rezoning. The Board's decision was considered to be fairly debatable, and this Court will not disturb it on appeal. While Thomas's argument has a degree of merit, and the rezoning may provide Aldridge a benefit, as a rezoning logically always does to one party or another, the Board nevertheless found a public need for rezoning and, on that basis, the decision cannot be considered spot-zoning.