Opinion ID: 865560
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Change in the neighborhood.

Text: 11 ¶24. In Town of Florence v. Sea Lands, Ltd., 759 So. 2d 1221, 1227 (Miss. 2000), this Court stated “it is impossible to articulate or design a particular test for determining what is sufficient evidence to show a material change and a public need to support rezoning.” In the context of change in the character of the neighborhood, this Court generally has limited its view of what constitutes a “neighborhood.” More recently however, in Kuluz v. City of D'Iberville, rezoning was affirmed where a change in the character of the neighborhood was at issue. Kuluz v. City of D'Iberville, 890 So. 2d 938, 942 (Miss. Ct. App. 2004), cert. denied, 2005 Miss. LEXIS 9 (Miss., Jan. 6, 2005). In its analysis, the Court of Appeals upheld in part the circuit court’s affirmance of the City of D’Iberville’s rezoning for a “neighborhood” that consisted of an area that comprised the whole portion of the City located north of Interstate 10. Id. at 940. The area of land considered was equivalent to approximately twenty-five percent of the entire city’s land mass. Id. Conversely, Kuluz’s argument that the neighborhood comprised a much smaller portion, only one-third of the northern portion of the city, an area mainly rural in nature, was rejected. Id. at 940-41. ¶25. While the Mississippi courts have analyzed rezoning more frequently in the context of municipal rezoning rather than county rezoning, the most recent rezoning decision pertains to the rezoning of a county and, like the case before us today, a county located on the Gulf Coast. Childs v. Hancock County Bd. of Supervisors, 1 So. 3d 855 (Miss. 2009). In Childs, this Court affirmed the rezoning of 1,000 acres of coastal land to a commercial resort classification. Childs, 1 So. 3d at 862. The Board of Supervisors adopted the Planning Commission’s findings, but made no additional findings of its own. Id. at 860. The Planning Commission determined that “conditions had changed in and around the area sought to be 12 rezoned which made an amendment necessary and desirable and in the public interest.” Id. Further, this Court determined that, in making its decision, the Board of Supervisors had properly considered its own familiarity and common knowledge of the area sought to be rezoned. Id. (citing Faircloth v. Lyles, 592 So. 2d 941, 943 (Miss. 1991)); Builders, Inc. v. Moore, 475 So. 2d 153, 153-55 (Miss. 1985); Board of Aldermen of Town of Bay Springs v. Jenkins, 423 So. 2d 1323, 1327 (Miss. 1982). This Court reiterated that “the reviewing court is concerned only with the reasonableness of the administrative order, not its correctness.” Id. (quoting Citizens Ass'n for Responsible Dev., 859 So. 2d at 367). ¶26. Hurricane Katrina made landfall on August 29, 2005. The impact of this natural disaster on the State of Mississippi and, more significantly, on the Gulf Coast of Mississippi, is a phenomenon that cannot be ignored in the case before the Court today. Indeed, the whole world, let alone the Harrison County Board of Supervisors, was on notice of the devastation and destruction the citizens and land of the Mississippi Gulf Coast suffered from Hurricane Katrina. ¶27. This case is distinguishable from Childs to the extent that, in that case, the county initiated zoning proceedings prior to Hurricane Katrina. Childs, 1 So. 3d at 857. Therefore, the decision in Childs to allow rezoning was not based on the impact of Hurricane Katrina. Unfortunately, in the intervening time period between the commencement of Hancock County’s rezoning and the commencement of Harrison County’s rezoning, Hurricane Katrina literally flattened portions of the Gulf Coast. The testimony at the hearings revealed that Hurricane Katrina had significantly changed Harrison County on a number of levels. However, as the following testimony highlights, in part, Hurricane Katrina jettisoned the 13 growth of Harrison County from south of Interstate I-10 to north of Interstate I-10. Pursuant to Mississippi caselaw, it is appropriate for the Board to consider information provided at the hearing and its own common knowledge and familiarity with the affected area. Id. at 860. ¶28. Bill Hessle, director of operations and property management, testified at the Planning Commission hearing. He stated that, apart from having the benefit of jobs and taxes, the site was chosen for other reasons. Hessle stated: Also, we had another reason, the growth of the county is due north. I think that’s been sped up a little bit because of Katrina. Obviously, the Saucier Community is working on a master plan to try to handle this growth in the future. Of course, we commend them for that effort, too. Because this is where the population is heading we think. And of course, with the growth to the north, jobs are going to be necessary in that location. And we feel this would be an asset to that growth. (Emphasis added.) ¶29. In addition, at the appeal before the Board, Larry Barnett, Executive Director for the Harrison County Development Commission, stated: The other thing that I would say on my part, as far as need is, it needs to be . . . a park needs to be in an area that can accommodate the growth. And, generally, if you look, a rural area that is growing, that we’re in . . . that grow [sic] this definitely headed that direction, up Highway 49, up that railway line. It has definitely been moving that direction for the past few years and probably has been enhanced by the . . . by the fact that this storm came last year. Unfortunate as that storm is, it is . . . it has moved the growth to the north. (Emphasis added.) Also, at the appeal before the Board, Hessle stated: I’m just going to briefly add, as is stated, obviously the most important thing and the reason we’re here today is what does your ordinance say it takes to change a piece of property. And if you look at your ordinance in Section 906.01, it does talk about potential changes are based on need and also on changing character as mentioned by the appellant. In what we . . . in what I handed you out, you can kind of follow. It briefly just talks strictly about this, 14 In Section 906.01.02, it specifically says that a change or change in condition in a particular area or the county, in general, make an amendment of this ordinance necessarily desirable. . . . As discussed in the previous hearing, and you’ll see throughout the transcript and stuff, there was discussions about Katrina’s effect on the area in South Mississippi. Um . . . as you know, the . . . uh . . .because of the storm, industries and businesses are looking to the north. And this has changed the whole character of this county because before the interest was south of I-10. Now, the interest is north of I-10. And it’s happened because of potential storm surge that is available to changing (inaudible). The insurance market out there is changing drastically for these businesses and these industries. They have to locate in areas that are more favorable to not be damaged by storm surge and stuff, so that’s changed, obviously, the desire in the county. The new highways we’ve discussed are in transit, 67, 49, potential 601, which we did bring up in the previous testimony, you’ll see some references to 601. The problem about 601 is there’s six or seven different alternatives out there. There’s no funding for it yet. It’s just . . . it’s proposed. So, obviously, we don’t even know if that’s ever going to happen. The other thing changing out here is going to be water and sewer in the north part of the county. It’s going to open up all kinds of potential growth once water and sewer hits. Um . . . and that is going to be funded in the near future. There’s studies and, at least, over $500,000,000.00 appointed to build these water and sewer facilities. Um . . . and of course, the other thing is land value. We all know that land values to the north . . . the south has changed because of casinos primarily (inaudible) on the south side is running the land value up so the north of the interstate, the land values are better situated. All of those points I’m trying to make is telling that it is obviously a change in the growth that’s to the north and that’s where we propose to put the park. (Emphasis added.)