Opinion ID: 1651662
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the City of Ridgeland failed to comply with the Ridgeland Ordinance's procedural requirements, and if so, whether the City's failure to comply constitutes reversible error.

Text: ¶ 60. The Protestants argue that it was reversible error for the Mayor and Board of Alderman to act without first having received recommendations regarding the petition from the Planning and Zoning Committee and the Zoning Administrator. The Protestants point out that Ridgeland's Ordinance, Section 600.09.B.1 states: All applications for special exceptions must first be submitted to the Zoning Administrator, who reviews them in light of all standards in Section 600.09-D and 600.10-E. Afterwards, the Zoning Administrator forwards the application and his recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Zoning Board for their review, comments, and recommendations. Ridgeland's Zoning Administrator, the Protestants explain, never presented a recommendation to the Planning Commission and Zoning Board prior to the September 10, 2007, Zoning Board hearing. ¶ 61. Moreover, Section 600.09.B.4 states that, After completing their reviews, the Planning Commission and Zoning Board then forward the application and their recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. Ridgeland, Miss., The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ridgeland, Mississippi (Feb. 6, 2001) at 142. In the instant case, at the Zoning Board hearing, neither motions to deny nor approve the petition were seconded by a board member, and thus the Zoning Board determined it was at an impasse and explained that all the information heard and gathered at the Zoning Board hearing would go to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen as a recommendation. The Protestants contend that this did not constitute a recommendation as required by Section 600.09.B.4. They argue that all decisions in this matter were those of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Ridgeland alone and were made in the absence of any factual findings, determinations, or recommendationsa result which is contrary to the procedural and substantive requirements of Ridgeland's own ordinances. ¶ 62. While it is true that Section 600.09 was not strictly followed, the Developers and the City of Ridgeland substantially complied with the procedural prerequisites for the conditional use permit. First, the petition was submitted to and reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, and the Zoning Administrator found that the Amended Petition meets the requirements of Sections 600.09-D and 600.10-E and recommend[ed] that the Mayor and Board of Alderman consider the Petition upon completion of the Public Hearing Process. In addition, the Director of Community Development, the Zoning Administrator's superior, testified before the Mayor and Board. After analyzing the proposed development under several tests (described as the Sustainable Community Model, Smart Growth Principles, and the objectives of Ridgeland's forthcoming Master Plan), the Director of Development testified that he recommended that the Mayor and Board of Aldermen approve the concept as presented by the Petitioner including the necessary conditional use permit and associated dimensional relief. Second, the Mayor and Board of Alderman not only possessed the information forwarded to them by the Zoning Board, but also conducted their own lengthy public hearing, in which they heard testimony from proponents and opponents of the petition. After considering all of the evidence, they issued the October 10, 2007, Ordinance, which addressed each of the fifteen General Standards set forth in Section 600.09.D. [10] ¶ 63. Furthermore, in past cases in which this Court considered protestants' allegations of procedural deficiencies in proceedings before zoning authorities, this Court held that, with two exceptions, [11] it is the City which is vested with final authority for determining whether its procedural requisites have been met or, if it pleases, waiving them. Thrash v. Mayor and Comm'rs of City of Jackson, 498 So.2d 801, 807 (Miss.1986). [12] In the instant case, the City of Ridgeland's attorney advised the Mayor and Board that caselaw permitted them to deal with the procedural issues as they chose, and that the issue regarding the Zoning Administrator's lack of recommendation was remedied when the Zoning Administrator, as well as her superior, the Director of Community Development, provided their recommendations to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. [13] ¶ 64. Thus, the City of Ridgeland substantially complied with the procedural requirements set out in Ridgeland's Ordinance; the City of Ridgeland had the discretion to waive certain specific procedural requirements; and any departures from the exact procedural requirements set forth in Ridgeland's Ordinance were, in this instance, not reversible error.