City of Jackson v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 09 April 1962
• Docket Number: No. 42182,42182
• Citation: 243 Miss. 646,139 So.2d 660
• Parties: CITY OF JACKSON v. W. P. BRIDGES, Sr.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 660

139 So.2d 660

243 Miss. 646

CITY OF JACKSON v. W. P. BRIDGES, Sr.

No. 42182.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 9, 1962.

E. W. Stennett, W. T. Neely, Lipscomb & Barksdale, Jackson, for appellant.

Robert G. Nichols, Jr., W. E. Gore, Jr., Jackson, for appellee.

LEE, Presiding Justice.

This litigation arose out of the rezoning of the property involved herein from commercial to residential.

Two plots of land were involved. As stipulated, the first plot is on the north side of the Old Canton Road and generally fronts 135 feet along the north side of Old Canton Road and runs north along the east line of Wayneland Drive, an extension of the north and south leg of Old Canton Road, 200 feet. East of this tract is Briarwood Addition, Part 4. The other plot fronts on the south line of the Old Canton Road, directly across the street from the first plot, approximately 250 feet east and west, and fronting on the east side of the north and south leg of the Old Canton Road 450 feet.

W. P. Bridges, Sr., owned these two parcels when they were zoned commercial by the Board of Supervisors of Hinds County on August 8, 1958, and he still owns them.

The corporate limits of the City of Jackson were extended in March 1960, and these parcels and the surrounding community were included.

Subsequent to the original zoning order of the Board of Supervisors, no effort was made to have the Board rezone the property.

The plat of the nearby Briarwood Addition, Part 1, was filed for record on May 5, 1959.

There were 23 property owners within 160 feet, exclusive of streets, of this property. Charles J. Weeks and 17 others, constituting 18 of said property owners, and 74 other persons, residents of Briarwood Addition, Part 1, filed with the Council of the City of Jackson a petition, praying that these two parcels be rezoned from commercial to residential. The petition was submitted to, and approved by, the Zoning Committee of the City. Thereupon, the Council ordered the City Clerk to give notice to all parties in interest or affected thereby of the pending application to rezone this property, and that said cause would be heard at the City Hall at 10:00 A. M. Wednesday, July 20, 1960. The City Clerk published the notice in the manner and for the time required by law.

W. P. Bridges, Sr., and others, being the other five property owners in this particular area, filed with the City Clerk their Landowners' Protest, in which they stated that the property was zoned commercial by the Board of Supervisors of Hinds County on August 8, 1958; that notice of the petition of C. J. Weeks and others to change the property from commercial to residential use had been published; and that they wished to formally register their protest against any change in the present zoning.

There was a stipulation as to how all of the nearby property owners obtained their property; and the facts were stipulated as follows:

Charles J. Weeks and others testified that Floyd Taylor, an agent for W. P. Bridges Real Estate since 1900, made representations to him and his wife and to Oral S. Head and wife to the effect that both of the parcels would be used for residential purposes. But W. P. Bridges, Sr., through his attorney, denied that Floyd Taylor had authority to make such representations.

W. P. Bridges, Sr., made no such statement to at least 16 owners and builders. He had no interest in or control over Sheppard Homes, Inc., or Bridges & Alexander Homes, Inc., or Scott Builders, Inc., or Carter & Fly, or McGehee & Gipson, or Lewis & Shanks Builders.

These two plots were zoned commercial before the plat of Briarwood Addition, Part 1, was filed.

United Gas Company has an easement for an 18-inch high pressure line, used for cross-country transmission of natural gas, which runs diagonally across the southwestern tip of one parcel and across the northeastern part of the other parcel. The regulations of the Federal Housing Administration prohibit that agency from insuring a loan on a house located within 100 feet of such a transmission line. But First Federal Savings & Loan Association of Jackson, Mississippi, and other lending agencies will make conventional loans on residential property located within 100 feet of a high pressure gas line.

The 92 persons, who signed the petition to rezone these two parcels, were residents of Briarwood Addition, Parts 1 and 11.

The average cost of the homes owned by petitioners Barnes, Weeks, Griffith, Head and Huddleston is $22,500.

Briarwood Addition, Part 1, lies immediately east of parcel one, which is north of the Old Canton Road, and the homes, owned by Charles J. Weeks and the others as named, are located in Briarwood Addition, Part 1.

The qualifications of L. T. Rogers, Jr., and Jack K. Mann, as appraisers of land were admitted. Rogers was of the opinion that, if the smaller tract is used commercially, it has a value of $14,850; but if used for residential purposes, it has a value of only $500. The larger tract has a commercial value of $49,875; but if restricted to residential, its value is only $8,900.

According to Jack K. Mann, the small tract, if used for commercial purposes, has a value of $17,000; and if used for residential purposes, its value would be $2,000. In his opinion, the large tract has a value of $54,000, if used for commercial purposes; but, if used for residential purposes, its value would be only $7,500.

Thus it appeared that, after these two parcels of land were zoned commercial by the board of supervisors on August 8, 1958, there was no effort on the part of the petitioners or anybody else to have such board to rezone it. Then, shortly after this area was taken into the corporate limits of the City of Jackson, the petitioners began their efforts to have it rezoned from commercial to residential.

The City Council rezoned the property to residential. W. P. Bridges, Sr., appealed to the circuit court on bill of exceptions, which set out the facts as heretofore stated. The circuit court, on this appeal, held that the zoning by the board of supervisors became ineffective from and after the annexation of the territory to the City, and that the notice to rezone was improper and invalid. For that reason, he reversed the action of the City Council. From that judgment, the City appealed, and Bridges prosecuted a cross-appeal.

The City assigned and contends that the court erred in holding that the zoning by the board of supervisors was ineffective after the annexation of the property to the City; in holding that the notice for rezoning was improper and invalid; in holding that the City's adoption of the County use district was ineffective; and in reversing the City's action.

On the contrary, the appellee says that the circuit court was correct in its decision, but that it should have also adjudicated that the action of the City authorities was arbitrary, unreasonable, confiscatory and capricious.

Obviously the appellee had due process: A petition to rezone was filed. Notice thereof was given. The appellee filed his protest and litigated the matter before the City Council. He then appealed from an order of the Council adverse to his contention.

When the zoned land in this area was added to the City of Jackson, it did not become thereby unzoned property. The City Council, as the successor to the board of supervisors, had the authority to consider rezoning the property, if a change was to be made. It also had the authority to deny such change. This was settled in Highland Village Land Co. v. City of Jackson, Miss., 137 So.2d 549.

Of course it is well settled that zoning ordinances are constitutional in principle as a valid exercise of the police power 'when reasonably related to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare'. Rhyne's Municipal Law, Zoning and Planning, Section 32-2, p. 812. 'Thus, a zoning ordinance, valid generally, but as applied to a particular parcel so unreasonable as to result in a confiscation of property, is invalid as to such parcel.' Ibid. 813. Again Rhyne says: 'Zoning measures are invalid where the public interest is slight and the private party will suffer great injury.' Ibid. 815. The author also says: 'One who plans to use his property in accordance with existing zoning regulations is entitled to assume that the regulations will not be altered to his detriment unless the change bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, comfort or general welfare.' Ibid. 825. Again Rhyne also points out: 'Zoning is not static, and zoning restrictions are subject to change. ...