Gerald Emmett Beard v. City of Ridgeland, Mississippi
245 So. 3d 380 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A municipality may not amend its zoning ordinance to allow previously prohibited uses in a district if the amendment is specifically tailored to benefit a single developer and property. Such an action constitutes illegal de facto rezoning if the stringent 'change or mistake' rule is not met, and impermissible spot-zoning if it is primarily for private benefit rather than the public interest.
Facts:
- In February 2014, the City of Ridgeland adopted a new comprehensive zoning ordinance, classifying the property at issue as C-2 (General Commercial), which prohibited uses like service stations and most drive-through facilities.
- Shortly after, in March 2014, City officials began secret negotiations, codenamed "Project Santa Claus," to bring a Costco Wholesale store to the C-2 zoned site.
- The City's Director of Community Development, Alan Hart, communicated directly with Costco's developer, Andrew Mattiace, and his attorney, assuring them the City would amend its zoning ordinance to accommodate Costco's needs, including its fuel facility.
- Hart drafted a proposed ordinance amendment creating a "Large Master Planned Commercial Development" (LMPCD) category after requesting specific project parameters from Mattiace and incorporating language changes suggested by Mattiace's attorney.
- The LMPCD category was tailored to Costco's specifications (e.g., a building over 100,000 sq. ft. on at least 15 acres) and permitted uses like service stations, which were otherwise only allowed in more intense C-3 zones intended to be away from residential areas.
- The City's mayor, Gene McGee, repeatedly denied rumors that a Costco was coming to Ridgeland while confidential negotiations and ordinance drafting were underway.
- On June 2, 2015, the City adopted the zoning amendment creating the LMPCD category, which enabled the Costco project to proceed and qualify for state tax incentives designated for master-planned developments.
Procedural Posture:
- Gerald Emmett Beard and other residents (Appellants) filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment in a trial court against the City of Ridgeland, challenging a zoning amendment adopted on June 2, 2015.
- The City repealed that amendment and re-enacted a substantially similar ordinance on April 5, 2016.
- The Appellants appealed the City's adoption of the April 5, 2016 ordinance to the Circuit Court of Madison County, which is the trial court in this matter.
- On April 21, 2017, the circuit court affirmed the City's zoning amendment, ruling it was not an illegal rezoning or an instance of spot-zoning.
- The Appellants appealed the circuit court's decision to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city's textual amendment to its zoning ordinance, which creates a new land use category allowing previously prohibited high-intensity commercial activities, constitute illegal de facto rezoning and impermissible spot-zoning when the amendment was created in collaboration with a specific developer to accommodate a particular project shortly after the city adopted a new comprehensive zoning plan?
Opinions:
Majority - King, J.
Yes, the amendment constitutes illegal de facto rezoning and impermissible spot-zoning. A municipality cannot circumvent the stringent requirements for rezoning by labeling its action a mere textual amendment when the substance of the change is to reclassify a property's permitted uses for the benefit of a specific project. The City failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that there was a mistake in the original 2014 zoning or a substantial change in the neighborhood's character, which is the required standard for a valid rezoning. The amendment effectively rezoned the property from a C-2 district to allow higher-intensity C-3 uses, directly contradicting the purpose of the City's own zoning scheme which intended to keep such uses away from residential areas. Furthermore, the extensive evidence of collaboration between City officials and Costco's developer—including the secret project name, coordinated drafting of the ordinance, and tailoring of the amendment's language to the project's specifications—proves the amendment was impermissible spot-zoning designed to favor a single developer, not to serve the public interest.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar set by the 'change or mistake' rule for justifying a piecemeal rezoning, making it clear that the rule applies to the substance, not just the form, of a zoning change. The court's ruling serves as a strong deterrent against 'contract zoning,' where a municipality tailors its regulations to the specific needs of a single developer. By invalidating an amendment that was disguised as a general textual change, the court signals that it will look behind the label of a legislative act to scrutinize the motive and effect. This precedent strengthens the legal position of citizens challenging zoning decisions that appear to be arbitrary or enacted primarily for private benefit, ensuring greater stability and predictability in land use planning.
