Elizabeth Ann Carroll and Thomas B. Butchart v. City of Canton, Mississippi; ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2019-CC-01146-COA
ELIZABETH ANN CARROLL AND THOMAS B. APPELLANTS
BUTCHART
v.
CITY OF CANTON, MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/14/2019
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. DEWEY KEY ARTHUR
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANTS: JAMES H. HERRING
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: KIMBERLY CELESTE BANKS
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 05/12/2020
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE J. WILSON, P.J., WESTBROOKS AND McDONALD, JJ.
McDONALD, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. In 2015, the City of Canton’s Board of Aldermen denied Elizabeth Carroll and
Thomas Butchart’s request for an extension of a special-use permit to operate their RV park.
The Board gave them one year to wind down operations. At the end of that time, instead of
closing, Carroll and Butchart filed another application for an extension of the permit. The
Board denied the application, and Carroll and Butchart appealed to the Circuit Court of
Madison County, claiming that the Board’s actions were arbitrary and capricious and lacked
substantial support. The circuit court affirmed the Board’s actions, and Carroll and Butchart
appeal to this Court, raising the same arguments. In response, the City claims that this Court
lacks jurisdiction, that the appeal is moot, and that the Board’s actions were not arbitrary or
capricious and were supported by substantial evidence. We find that this Court does have
jurisdiction, that the appeal is not moot, and that the Board’s actions were not arbitrary or
capricious and had sufficient support. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s order that
approved the City’s denial of Carroll and Butchart’s request.
FACTS
¶2. Brother and sister Elizabeth Carroll and Thomas Butchart are co-owners of a 5.5 acre
parcel of property located at 2747 South Liberty Street (Highway 51) in the city of Canton,
Mississippi. The parcel is a portion of twenty-five acres of property they acquired through
exchanges with other family members. The acreage was originally zoned as residential.
¶3. In May 2002, the City approved the five acre parcel for use as a recreational vehicle
(RV) park, which was incorporated as “Hwy 51 RV Park, Inc.” The park’s initial intent was
to house construction workers when the Nissan plant was being built, but by July 2016, only
three-to-four people living there were employed by Nissan. Currently the park, utilized by
travelers and full-time residents, averages about forty recreational vehicles (with no mobile
homes) at any given time. The units belong to the individuals, but the park provides water,
sewer, and electrical service and pays City and State property and income taxes. Butchart
spent considerable time and money preparing the site for use.
¶4. Since 2002, the RV park has operated under its “Special Exception/Conditional Use”
permit, which has been renewed twice even though the City adopted a Uniform Development
Code and the area was re-zoned “C-3” (i.e., commercial). By 2015, other developments in
2
the C-3 commercially zoned RV park area included the Links Apartments, a Bumpers
Restaurant, an Exxon Gas Station, a Scott Petroleum, and Bear Creek Store. But across the
road, there is a residential subdivision called “Parkside of Eastgate.”
¶5. In 2015, Carroll and Butchart again applied for a renewal of the permit. They did not
seek a permanent exception or re-zoning. The City’s Planning Commission considered their
application and recommended an extension of five years.1 But the Board rejected the
recommendation. Instead, the City gave Carroll and Butchart sixty days to cease operations.
Carroll and Butchart initiated an appeal of the City’s decision by filing a “Bill of Exceptions”
in the circuit court. But they withdrew the appeal when they and the Board agreed to a one-
year moratorium to enable residents to leave and to give Butchart and Carroll more time to
1
Under the City’s Uniform Development Code, the Planning Commission makes
recommendations, and the Board decides the matter:
1.600.09 CONDITIONAL USES (SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS):
Applications for conditional uses shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator
on forms and with supporting material as required by this ordinance. The
Zoning Administrator receives, reviews, and makes recommendations to the
Zoning Commission on each conditional use application. The Zoning
Administrator shall then establish an agenda for public hearing cause notice
of the time and place thereof to be published. The Zoning Commission holds
a public hearing and reviews each conditional use application and makes a
recommendation for or against approval to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen
for final disposition. The Mayor and Board of Aldermen are empowered to
hear and decide whether or not proposed conditional uses (special exceptions)
authorized under this Ordinance should be granted after reviewing the
application and any recommendations from the Zoning Administrator and
Zoning Commission.
3
close the RV park.2
¶6. After the expiration of the one-year period given by the Board, the Planning
Commission sent Butchart a notice to cease operations. Instead of doing so, on May 11,
2016, Butchart submitted to the Planning Commission another application for renewal of the
property’s conditional use permit. Butchart admitted that his request was for a temporary,
not a permanent, use exception, nor was it a request for re-zoning.
¶7. The matter came before the City’s Planning Commission on July 28, 2016. At that
time, Butchart, a certified public accountant and owner of other businesses in Madison
County, addressed the Board and reviewed the RV park’s history. He noted that fifteen years
prior, when they obtained their first use exception, he understood that if the presence of the
park impeded the growth of the city, it would be shut down. But he argued it has not. It had
been well-maintained, landscaped, and fenced. During the hearing, one Planning
Commission member commented that even though the RV park existed when the new zoning
ordinance passed, it could not be “grandfathered in” because it was not a permanent use, only
a temporary use. Butchart’s attorney recommended that the Planning Commission look at
updating their zoning ordinance so that Butchart would not have to keep coming back to
request a special-use exception. But the Planning Commission did not want to get into spot
zoning3 and said that the current C-3 designation is really a catch-all designation.
2
Because that appeal was dismissed, the record in this appeal does not contain that
2015 Bill of Exceptions or any of the evidence that was presented to the City when it denied
Carroll and Butchart’s request.
3
“Impermissible ‘spot zoning’ occurs when a board rezones a particular ‘spot’ which
is not in character with the zoning of the surrounding properties.” Thomas v. Bd. of
4
¶8. During the Planning Commission hearing, a letter from the Parkside of Eastgate
Homeowners Association was acknowledged in which homeowners who resided within 160
feet of the RV park objected to the special-exception application. However, although the
Planning Commission sent homeowners notice of the hearing, no one from the Association
appeared to testify. Despite the objection, the Planning Commission recommended that
Carroll and Burchart’s renewal request be granted and that their permit be extended for two
years, until July 2018.
¶9. As previously stated, the Planning Commission had no authority to grant or deny
Butchart’s request—only to refer its recommendation to the City’s mayor and the Board of
Aldermen. The mayor and Board met on August 2, 2016 to consider the Commission’s
recommendation on Butchart’s request. One Board member commented that the park’s
presence had negatively affected the value of the residential homes in the area. Homeowners
had been told that the park was not permanent and felt betrayed. There was also concern
about criminal activity in the park. Butchart responded that he knew of only a couple of
instances when the police had to be called. Board members were also concerned that
Butchart had not honored their 2015 decision that gave him time to close. Butchart presented
a petition signed by residents of the RV park asking that the park be kept open because of its
proximity to many of their worksites and because it was less expensive that the other RV
park in the county. Butchart admitted that the park was now a business, and he presented to
the Board his compilation of the tax benefits that the business brought to the City. Another
Supervisors of Panola Cty., 45 So. 3d 1173, 1187 (¶43) (Miss. 2010).
5
Board member was concerned that the Planning Commission and the Board seemed to have
different viewpoints on the application. The Board then voted to table the discussion until
it could meet with the Planning Commission.
¶10. On August 16, 2016, the Board of Aldermen reconvened. Butchart appeared again
and passed out the transcript of the August 2 Board meeting. Alderman Gilkey said that
since the last meeting, the Board had realized that it made a decision about the park back in
2015. The Board had not met with the Planning Commission but there was a member of the
Planning Commission present whom Alderman Gilkey asked to come forward and speak.
That the Board did in fact grant Butchart a one-year moratorium from enforcement of the
Board’s 2015 decision was confirmed by a review of the minutes from April 7, 2015, which
reflected a unanimous vote to “delay enforcement” for one year.
¶11. The Board continued to discuss what it was actually considering—how long of a
period of time to give Butchart to close down the park in enforcement of the prior order, or
consideration of the Planning Commission’s recommendation on a new request. Donald
Lawrence, the City’s Building and Development Director, confirmed that the Planning
Commission had recommended approval of Butchart’s request for a two-year extension.
However, several aldermen felt that Butchart should have complied with the notice to cease
operations instead of being given another chance to present a new application. Butchart was
given five minutes to speak, during which time he presented a spreadsheet showing that
Parkside Eastgate subdivision homes had increased in value, not decreased. The Board
resumed its discussion. A motion to grant Butchart ninety days to cease operations was
6
made. One Board member moved to revise the motion to allow Butchart to operate the RV
park indefinitely. This latter motion failed. The Board then voted on the ninety-day
extension, which passed by a five-to-two vote.
¶12. On August 25, 2019, Carroll and Butchart filed their notice of appeal from the Canton
Board of Alderman’s decision in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Mississippi. On
August 26, 2016, Carroll and Butchart presented the mayor and the City with their “Bill of
Exceptions.” The mayor refused to sign it because he believed it included more information
than was presented to the Board. The mayor gave Butchart his own Addendum. Butchart
and Carroll filed their Bill of Exceptions along with the mayor’s Addendum with the Circuit
Court of Madison County, Mississippi that day. The Bill of Exceptions and Addendum were
later amended with the court’s approval.
¶13. Butchart filed a motion for supersedeas, attaching his affidavit and that of a resident
of the RV park to show the need for a stay of the Board’s decision. After a telephonic
hearing on the matter, on October 31, 2016, the circuit court granted the motion and stayed
the effectiveness of the decision made by the Board until final resolution of the matter on
appeal.
¶14. The docket of the case reflects that no action taken by any party in 2017. In 2018, the
Bill of Exceptions was again amended with court approval, and in 2019, the issues were
briefed to the circuit court. On June 14, 2019, the circuit court issued its order, which was
entered on June 17, 2019. In it, the circuit court found that “the Board’s denial of Carroll and
Butchart’s application to renew or grant to them a special exception and/or ‘conditional use
7
permit’ is supported by substantial evidence and is not arbitrary or capricious.”
¶15. From that order, Carroll and Butchart timely appealed to the supreme court on July
15, 2019,4 claiming that the Board’s action was arbitrary and capricious and not supported
by the evidence. In response, the City argued that the appellate court has no jurisdiction, that
the issue is moot, and that the Board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious and was
supported by the evidence.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶16. “When the appellate court reviews a decision by a circuit court concerning an agency
action, it applies the same standard of review that the lower courts are bound to follow.”
Miss. Sierra Club Inc. v. Miss. Dep’t of Envtl. Quality, 819 So. 2d 515, 519 (¶15) (Miss.
2002). “Decisions by the governing authorities of a municipality are subject to limited
review. . .[and] will be overturned only if the decision (1) was beyond its scope or power; (2)
violated the constitutional or statutory rights of the aggrieved party; (3) was not supported
by substantial evidence; or (4) was arbitrary or capricious.” Jones v. City of Canton, 278 So.
3d 1129, 1131 (¶7) (Miss. 2019) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Questions
of law, including matters of jurisdiction, are reviewed de novo. City of Jackson v. Allen, 242
So. 3d 8, 13 (¶17) (Miss. 2018).
DISCUSSION
I. Whether this Court has jurisdiction.
¶17. The City argues that the record submitted to the circuit court went beyond the minutes
4
The thirtieth day to file a notice of appeal fell on Saturday, July 13, 2019, making
the Monday, July 15, 2019, filing timely.
8
and materials presented to the Board of Aldermen when it made its decision. Therefore, it
claims this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the appeal. In response, Carroll and Butchart
point to the October 17, 2018 order of the circuit court granting their motion to amend the
record to include various items. Thus, the record is not missing anything pertinent and
important.
¶18. Until July 2018, “the bill of exceptions serve[d] as the record on the appeal of a
decision by a municipal authority.”5 Jones, 278 So. 3d at 1131 (¶7). In City of Jackson, the
Mississippi Supreme Court clarified previous holdings on the issue of whether a fatally
defective bill of exceptions robs the courts of jurisdiction:
Appellate jurisdiction in the circuit court is, by operation of the Mississippi
Constitution, a matter of legislative prerogative. Miss. Const. art. 6, § 156.
While Section 11-51-75 by its plain language requires that an appeal from a
county or municipal board be accomplished via a bill of exceptions and that
the appeal be made within ten days, it contains very little else that sets forth
jurisdictional requirements. Notably absent from the statute—unlike the statute
at issue in McDonald[6] upon which the Stewart[7] Court in part relied—are
specific content requirements. Jurisdiction is defined as a “court’s power to
decide a case or issue a decree.” Jurisdiction, Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed.
2014). When the Stewart and Weathersby[8] Courts wrote in terms of
jurisdiction, they misused the term. It is clear that failing to embody a
sufficient record in the bill of exceptions can be fatal to the attempted
appeal—as shown above, such has been the case since the first days of our
5
In 2018, the Legislature amended Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-51-75
(Rev. 2012) to provide that an appeal from a city council decision shall be taken by filing
a notice of appeal rather than a bill of exceptions. 2018 Miss. Laws ch. 448, §1 (H.B. 1239).
However, those amendments do not affect this appeal.
6
McDonald v. Spence, 179 Miss. 342, 174 So. 54 (1937) (superceded by statute).
7
Stewart v. City of Pascagoula, 206 So. 2d 325 (Miss. 1968) (superceded by statute).
8
Weathersby v. City of Jackson, 226 So. 2d 739 (Miss. 1969).
9
State. Yet, in other cases, we have allowed appeals made via the bill of
exceptions to proceed despite flaws. Yellow Cab Company of Biloxi v. City of
Biloxi, 372 So.2d 1274 (Miss. 1979). However, we clarify Stewart and
Weathersby and make it clear that, fatal or not, an insufficient record does not
rob the circuit court of jurisdiction as the term is properly understood.
City of Jackson, 242 So. 3d at 21 (¶49).
¶19. In the case at hand, the City argues that the Bill of Exceptions is fatally flawed, not
because it is deficient but because it includes too much. The City correctly states the law that
an appeal of a board’s decision concerning zoning matters is strictly limited to the record of
what occurred before the board as contained in a bill of particulars. See Gallagher v. City of
Waveland, 182 So. 3d 471, 475 (¶19) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015). However, the circuit court in
this matter twice heard motions to amend the bill of exceptions. The circuit court determined
that the Bill of Exceptions was proper. The City’s concerns about the bill of exceptions may
affect other issues of this appeal, but they do not affect the jurisdiction of either the trial court
or this court on appeal. We find that this court does have jurisdiction to hear this case.
II. Whether the case is moot.
¶20. The City next argues that this case is moot, making any decision by this Court
prohibitively advisory. It claims that if the City erred in failing to accept the Planning
Commission’s recommendation of a two-year extension of Butchart’s special-use exception,
the recommended extension would have expired in July 2018. Carroll and Butchart did not
request a permanent extension, and therefore the time has expired even if Butchart’s appeal
results in a reversal of the Board’s decision. Carroll and Butchart respond that the circuit
court’s order of October 31, 2016, stayed the execution of the Board’s order, and thus the
10
case is not moot.
¶21. “Cases in which an actual controversy existed at trial but the controversy has expired
at the time of review, become moot.” Barrett v. City of Gulfport, 196 So. 3d 905, 910-11
(¶17) (Miss. 2016). Moreover, if a decision, if rendered, would be of no practical benefit to
the appellant, the case is moot. Id. In Barrett, the Gulfport City Council had approved the
use of an historic home as a recreational center. Id. at 906 (¶1). Two citizens appealed that
decision, but during the pendency of the appeal, the use application was withdrawn. Id. The
Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of the appeal on mootness
grounds. Id. at 911 (¶18). The supreme court reviewed the exceptions to mootness which
include matters of public interest or if the challenged action is capable of repetition, yet
evading review. Id. at 912-13 (¶¶22-24). It found neither of these applied and dismissed the
appeal. Id.
¶22. In the case at hand, Butchart has appealed the City of Canton’s 2016 refusal to accept
the Planning Commission’s recommendation to extend his special-use permit for two years.
The City granted only a ninety-day extension to enable Butchart to discontinue his operation.
After appealing to the circuit court, Butchart filed a motion for supersedeas (basically, for
injunctive relief to stay execution of the City’s ruling). The circuit court granted that motion,
and its authority to do so is not challenged in this appeal. That order effectively freezes the
ninety-day extension in time until resolution of this case on appeal. Whether we affirm or
reverse the Board’s decision, Carroll and Butchart still have at least ninety days from the date
of the final opinion on appeal to cease operations or two years of future operation. The park
11
is apparently continuing to operate and thus, the resolution of this appeal has concrete
ramifications to Carroll and Butchart. We find that the controversy has not expired and in
our opinion, the issues are not moot.
III. Whether the City’s decision was arbitrary or capricious or not
supported by substantial evidence.
¶23. A board’s decision regarding a special-use exception is an adjudicative rather than a
legislative act. Como Steak House Inc. v. Bd. of Supervisors of Panola Cty., 200 So. 3d 417,
421 (¶11) (Miss. 2016). “We will not disturb the City’s decision concerning a special
exception application unless we find that the decision was 1) unsupported by substantial
evidence, 2) arbitrary or capricious, 3) beyond the Board’s scope or powers, or 4) in
violation of a party’s constitutional or statutory rights.” Id. A governing board’s decision
concerning a zoning or special-use exception is presumptively valid and the burden of proof
is on the one claiming it to be invalid. Foster v. City of Pass Christian, 117 So. 3d 658, 659
(¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2013).
¶24. “Substantial evidence has been defined as ‘such relevant evidence as reasonable
minds might accept as adequate to support a conclusion’ or to put it simply, more than a
‘mere scintilla’ of evidence.” Hearne v. City of Brookhaven, 822 So. 2d 999, 1002-03 (¶9)
(Miss. Ct. App. 2002). It is “something less than a preponderance of the evidence but more
than a scintilla or glimmer.” Como Steak House, 200 So. 3d at 422 (¶15). An agency or
board’s action is “arbitrary” if it is not done according to reason but depending the will alone.
Id. at 425 (¶38). In City of Petal v. Dixie Peanut Co., 994 So. 2d 835, 837-38 (¶8) (Miss. Ct.
App. 2008), we stated the guidelines set by our state supreme court for determining whether
12
an action is arbitrary and capricious:
“Arbitrary” means fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure. An act is arbitrary
when it is done without adequately determining principle; not done according
to reason or judgment, but depending on the will alone,—absolute in power,
tyrannical, despotic, non-rational,—implying either a lack of understanding of
or disregard for the fundamental nature of things.
“Capricious” means freakish, fickle, or arbitrary. An act is capricious when it
is done without reason, in a whimsical manner, implying either a lack of
understanding of or a disregard for the surrounding facts and settled
controlling principles. . . .
(Quoting Harrison Cty. Bd. of Supervisors v. Carlo Corp., 833 So. 2d 582, 583 (¶16) (Miss.
2002)).
¶25. Often, the concept of an issue’s being “fairly debatable” is used when determining
whether an action is arbitrary or capricious.
“Fairly debatable” is the antithesis of arbitrary and capricious. If a decision is
one which could be considered “fairly debatable,” then it could not be
considered arbitrary or capricious, although we continue to use both standards.
Saunders v. City of Jackson, 511 So. 2d 902, 906 (Miss. 1987). If a governing board’s
decision is merely “debatable,” the appellate court will not overturn the circuit court’s
affirmation of that decision. Trappey v. Newman, 281 So. 3d 58, 61 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App.
2019).
¶26. Carroll and Butchart argue that the evidence they put before the Planning Commission
and the Board supporting their application for renewal was “overwhelming and uncontested,”
making the City’s rejection of its application arbitrary and capricious. An examination of the
record does show that the property is well-maintained and generates tax revenue for the City.
But during the hearing, aldermen articulated concerns about public safety (i.e., police calls,
13
which Butchart admitted had occurred), and the general public interest (as shown by the
objection of residential homeowners across the road). The objection letter reminded the
Board that the RV park was originally granted a special use-exception to house construction
workers for the Nissan Plant. That need has long expired as has the need for the RV park,
which the homeowners characterized as more akin to a trailer park, which in some settings
can devalue neighboring property values.9 Where there is evidence supporting both sides of
an argument on a land use application, we have deferred to the administrative agency’s
ultimate decision. In Saunders, we said that in such an instances, “it is hard to see how the
ultimate decision could be anything but ‘fairly debatable,’ not ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ and
therefore beyond our authority to overturn.” Saunders, 511 So. 2d at 907. A reviewing
appellate court must give deference to an administrative decision, and if the decision can be
viewed as “fairly debatable,” it will be affirmed. Drews v. City of Hattiesburg, 905 So. 2d
719, 722 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004).
¶27. Significantly in this case, Carroll and Butchart approached the Board from a position
of non-compliance with the Board’s prior order. They give no explanation for their failure
to cease operations after the first year-long extension given them by the Board in 2015. The
Board itself appeared to desire enforcement of its prior order over consideration of Butchart’s
application anew. Whether to tolerate non-compliance with a Board order that was not
appealed and final, or to allow a dissatisfied landowner to avoid a valid Board order by
9
Cf. Manufactured Hous. Ass’n v. Bd. of Supervisors of Tate Cty., 878 So. 2d 180,
192 (¶29) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (“Property values and aesthetics are valid concerns for
zoning ordinances, and zoning ordinances may be applied to manufactured housing to
further that goal.”).
14
merely filing a new application, is a substantial factor that the Board considered in this case.
“If the Board’s decision is founded on substantial evidence, and is not arbitrary or capricious,
it is binding on this Court.” Hearne v. City of Brookhaven, 822 So. 2d 999, 1005 (¶22) (Miss.
Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Bowling v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 724 So. 2d 431, 436
(¶22) (Miss. Ct. App.1998)). From our review of the record, we find that the Board’s
decision, even if debatable, was founded on substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or
capricious.10
CONCLUSION
¶28. We find that the decision of the circuit court should be affirmed because our review
of the City’s act in denying Carroll and Butchart’s application for renewal of its special-use
permit was not arbitrary and capricious and was supported by substantial evidence.
¶29. AFFIRMED.
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND J. WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE,
10
We decline to address Carroll and Burchart’s argument that their RV park special
use exception application should have been granted because it is a conditional use that was
approved prior to the adoption of the Unified Development Code and thus should be
“grandfathered” in and approved. Carroll and Butchart only raised this argument in passing
in their initial brief, saying that their representative argued to the Planning Commission that
they should be granted a zoning special exception on this basis and saying “there is a
reasonable legal basis for the Court to rule that the Butchart and Carroll property is now
‘grandfathered’ in.” They failed in their initial brief to cite any authority to support their
claim and thus are procedurally barred from such an argument. See Herrin v. Perkins, 282
So. 3d 727, 733 (¶21) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (“Failure to cite legal authority in support of
an issue is a procedural bar on appeal. Any failure to cite authority in support of an
argument precludes consideration of the issue on appeal.”). Citing authority in a reply brief
does not rectify this failure. Robinson v. Burton, 49 So. 3d 660, 665 n.5 (Miss. Ct. App.
2010) (“We recognize that Robinson does cite some authority in her repy brief, but failure
to argue an issue in the principal brief is a procedural bar.”). To countenance this would
deprive an appellee of the opportunity to respond to the argument.
15
WESTBROOKS, LAWRENCE, McCARTY AND C. WILSON, JJ., CONCUR.
TINDELL, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITHOUT SEPARATE WRITTEN
OPINION.
16