Opinion ID: 1817476
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Need for Zoning and Overall Planning

Text: ¶ 45. This Court gives chancellors a wide latitude of discretion in analyzing whether this indicator weighs against annexation. Specifically, [t]his Court has approved annexations even where the City does not plan to provide zoning and planning and where the County has in force its own zoning and planning ordinances. In re Enlargement and Extension of Boundaries of City of Macon, 854 So.2d 1029, 1041 (Miss.2003). ¶ 46. For the zoning and planning factor, the chancellor found: While Rankin County has recognized a need for planning, it has no zoning ordinance as testimony closed in this trial. The proposed annexation area, as would likely any unregulated area, contains some incompatible uses, and the Court believes zoning, however unpopular, has much to commend it. The inspection tour taken in this trial almost alone convinced the Court of the need for land use regulation afforded by zoning. The Court recognizes that existing use may be grandfathered and/or excepted but that all other areas will likely be enhanced by zoning. Community standards generally exert strong influences on what is contained therein, and the Court would be mildly surprised to learn that any adult entertainment establishment had located in the proposed annexation area, as objectors note. Zoning is comprehensive, and restrictive covenants apply only to the area involved. Zoning is often unpopular, and creates terrific legal conflicts; yet, it can and does bring about much good and, while the evidence supports a need for zoning, the inspection tour alone convinced the Court. ¶ 47. The chancellor based his decision that the PAA needs zoning and overall planning on his inspection tour and other evidence in the record. Some of the photographic exhibits reveal incompatible land uses in the PAA. For example, Roger Heatherly, director of community development for the City of Pearl, testified that photograph six shows an abandoned vehicle, dilapidated building, and what is appears to be a house in the background. Photographs 21, 22, 39, and 40 reveal abandoned vehicles. Photograph 51 shows unsightly conditions in a residence and a building beginning tothat is partially dilapidated. Photograph 50 has a lot of debris . . . 59 shows an abandoned vehicle, a TV, assorted debris, a mobile home that's not in good repair, possibly abandoned. Assorted debris scattered throughout the property is shown in photograph 79 and 35 is showing 2 abandoned vehicles, possibly a third one in the background. Photograph 41 is an example of an incompatible land use with a business, a mobile home and a residential, side-by-side. Johnstone testified that the newly enacted subdivision regulations for Rankin County were fairly consistent with their Pearl counterparts. She further testified that Rankin County is moving to the International Code Council and sending their inspectors to be trained for those. While Rankin County has many building codes and sign ordinances similar to Pearl's building codes and sign ordinances, Rankin County has no zoning ordinance. ¶ 48. Rankin County's growing commitment to code enforcement and subdivision ordinances is further evidence of the desirability of managing development with codes, ordinances, and overall planning. Since Pearl has zoning ordinances to assist overall planning while Rankin County does not, we cannot say the special chancellor was manifestly wrong to weigh this factor in favor of approval of the annexation.