Baymeadows, LLC v. City of Ridgeland, Mississippi

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2012-CA-01283-SCT
BAYMEADOWS, LLC, A MISSISSIPPI LIMITED
LIABILITY COMPANY d/b/a BAYMEADOWS
APARTMENTS
v.
THE CITY OF RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/13/2012
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. JOHN HUEY EMFINGER
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: J. LAWSON HESTER
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JERRY L. MILLS
JAMES H. GABRIEL
JOHN P. SCANLON
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - OTHER
DISPOSITION: REVERSED AND REMANDED - 02/06/2014
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
BEFORE DICKINSON, P.J., KITCHENS AND CHANDLER, JJ.
DICKINSON, PRESIDING JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
¶1. The Board of Aldermen for the City of Ridgeland (“the Board”) denied Baymeadows,
LLC’s proposed repair plans to correct 1,478 cited code violations, and Baymeadows
appealed the Board’s decision. We hold that the Board did not adequately state its rationale
for denying the proposed plans, and we remand for the Board either to issue Baymeadows
a permit or provide an appropriate factual basis for its denial.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2. Baymeadows, LLC (“Baymeadows”) owns Baymeadows Apartments, a 264-unit
apartment complex located in the City of Ridgeland (“Ridgeland”). Baymeadows purchased
the property from Ridgeland Group, LLC, in 1998 and owned the property until its
foreclosure in August 2013. On June 10, 2010, Ridgeland provided Baymeadows written
notice and an order to correct 1,478 property and maintenance code violations. Baymeadow
appealed the violations to the Board, which stayed any enforcement action until the
disposition of the appeal. On August 24, 2010, after a lengthy hearing, the Board denied
Baymeadows’ appeal, and Baymeadows took no further action.
¶3. After it failed to correct the violations, on February 2, 2011, Ridgeland commenced
a criminal action against Baymeadows in the Municipal Court of the City of Ridgeland. A
Ridgeland Department of Community Development code enforcement officer swore to 1,478
citations before the municipal court, and each alleged a violation of certain provisions of an
unspecified municipal code. On April 14, 2011, Ridgeland withdrew all 1,478 citations
previously filed, and it filed 1,478 new citations under the correct provisions of the City of
Ridgeland Property and Maintenance Code. Ridgeland then served Baymeadows notice
concerning the new citations.
¶4. Prior to the adjudication of these violations, on April 21, 2011, the municipal court
accepted Baymeadows into the Pretrial Diversion Program so that it might avoid prosecution
of the code violations. Baymeadows signed a Pretrial Diversion Agreement (“PDA”), which
2
specified that Baymeadows must meet certain minimum requirements before submitting its
repair plans to the Board. In relevant part, the PDA stated:
Baymeadows, LLC will submit by May 10, 2011, for approval its proposal for
construction work and repairs to the Baymeadows Apartments to the
Architectural Review Board, which submission shall include the following
minimum requirements: (a) Site Plan; (b) Construction Phasing Plan/Safety
Plan; (c) Erosion Control Plan and SWPPP; (d) Drainage Plan; (e) Landscape
Plan; (f) Lighting Plan; (g) Architectural Rendering; (h) Interior Remodeling
Plan; (i) Material and Color Sample Board. Baymeadows, LLC will conduct
a camera inspection of all sanitary sewer lines on the West portion of the
Baymeadows Apartments and, on the east portion of the property, only as to
those sanitary sewer lines servicing Building 16, with a repair plan by June 7,
2011.
The PDA went on to state that:
If a definitive and mutually acceptable agreement in all respects is reached
between the City of Ridgeland and Baymeadows, LLC, with formal approval
of the Architectural review committee and . . . the Board of Aldermen . . . no
later than June 15, 2011, Baymeadow shall immediately apply for a valid
building permit to be issued by the City of Ridgeland promptly thereafter.
¶5. The PDA also contained a time frame for the completed construction, which stated
that Baymeadows should complete construction in three phases, and it must resolve all
remaining code violations by May 19, 2012. Lastly, the PDA stated that
if a definitive and mutually acceptable agreement in all respects for the nature,
details, scope and performance of the specific repairs and construction work
at Baymeadows Apartments is not reached mutually between the City of
Ridgeland and Baymeadows . . . not later than June 15, 2011, this Pretrial
Diversion Agreement . . . shall be automatically deemed void and of no legal
effect and shall be automatically fully rescinded . . . .
3
¶6. After entering into the PDA, Baymeadows submitted its repair plans to the
Department of Community Development for review.1 In response, the Ridgeland City
Planner and the Department of Community Development requested fifteen additional items,
which it needed before Baymeadows could submit its plans to the Architectural Review
Board. Baymeadows complied with the request and supplied the additional items.
¶7. On May 18, 2011, Alan Hart, Director of the Community Development Department
of Ridgeland, notified Baymeadows that the City Planner and Building Official had reviewed
the submissions again and had found them complete; thus Baymeadows did not need to
submit any additional items before making its presentation to the Architectural Review
Board. On May 24, 2011, Baymeadows presented its repair plans to the Architectural Review
Board, which approved the plans by majority vote.
¶8. Thereafter, the Board placed Baymeadows’ repair plans on its agenda for the June 6,
2011, work session and the June 7, 2011, formal session. Baymeadows appeared at both
meetings and gave presentations concerning the improvements. On June 7, 2011, after
considering the matter in executive session, the Board voted to deny Baymeadows’ proposed
repair plans. In its meeting minutes, the Board explained that it denied Baymeadows’ repair
plans because Baymeadows failed to “provide an adequate safety plan, erosion control plan,
1
It should be noted that, according to Ridgeland’s Developmental Review Procedures,
applicants must receive developmental review approval before applying for a permit. Thus,
Baymeadows had not yet applied for a building permit.
4
interior remodeling plan and did not provide the agreed camera inspection and repair plan
for sewer lines.”
¶9. Baymeadows appealed the Board’s denial to the circuit court, which affirmed the
Board’s decision, finding the decision was (1) supported by substantial evidence; (2) not
arbitrary or capricious nor beyond the power of the City to make, and that it (3) did not
violate any statutory or constitutional right of the appellant. Baymeadows now appeals to this
Court, arguing that the Board improperly applied the terms of the PDA, instead of the
applicable city ordinances, when determining whether Baymeadows’ repair plans qualified
for approval. Further, Baymeadows argues the Board’s denial was not supported by
substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious, illegal, beyond the power of the City of
Ridgeland, and that it violated Baymeadows’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due-
process and equal-protection rights and resulted in a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶10. Under Section 11-51-75, “any person aggrieved by a judgment or decision of the
board of supervisors, or municipal authorities of a city, town, or village may appeal within
ten (10) days . . . in a bill of exceptions to the circuit court . . . .” 2 This Court will not reverse
the decision of the municipality unless its decision is “arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory,
2
Miss. Code Ann. § 11-51-75 (Rev. 2012).
5
or is illegal, or without a substantial evidentiary basis.” 3 “Legal errors are subject to a de
novo review.” 4
ANALYSIS
The terms of the city ordinances, not the PDA, must govern the Board’s
decision.
¶11. Baymeadows asserts that it fully complied with all of the requirements outlined in
Ridgeland’s city ordinances, and the Board improperly based its denial on the inadequacy
of documents required by the PDA but not the ordinances. Baymeadows argues that its
compliance with the PDA is distinct from its ability to obtain Board approval of its repair
plans. On the other hand, Ridgeland asserts that it considered the terms of the PDA when
making its determination because Baymeadow asked the Board to grant a forebearance on
code-violation enforcement–a provision of the PDA–throughout the repair process. Secondly,
at oral argument, Ridgeland argued that, regardless of the PDA, the Board acted within the
authority of the city’s ordinances to deny Baymeadows’ proposed repair plans. As explained
below, we find Ridgeland could require the additional items under its city ordinances.
¶12. Ridgeland’s Development Review Procedures require development-review approval
prior to the issuance of any building permit.5 The ordinances further provide that, “in
addition to meeting all of the requirements of the Zoning Ordinances, any applicant for a
3
Town of Florence v. Sea Lands, Ltd., 759 So. 2d 1221, 1223 (Miss. 2000) (citing Faircloth
v. Lyles, 592 So. 2d 941, 943 (Miss. 1991)).
4
ABC Mfg. Corp. v. Doyle, 749 So. 2d 43, 45 (Miss. 1999).
5
Ridgeland, Miss., Developmental Review Procedure § 13-S-2 (1991).
6
building permit . . . shall submit the following plans. . . ”: (a) site plan; (b) a conceptual
landscape plan; (c) architectural drawings shall conform to the building codes; (d) signs shall
conform to the ordinances; (e) conceptual grading and drainage plans shall conform to the
ordinances; (f) such other data as may be required by the Building Official or City Engineer.6
¶13. The PDA requires that Baymeadows submit each of the following to the Board for
review: (a) site plan; (b) construction phasing plan/safety plan; (c) erosion-control plan
and SWPPP; (d) drainage plan; (e) landscape plan; (f) lighting plan; (g) architectural
rendering; (h) interior remodeling plan; (i) material and color-sample board. It also states
that Baymeadows must conduct a camera inspection of all sanitary sewer lines on the west
portion of the property and complete a camera inspection of the sanitary sewer lines servicing
building 16 on the East portion of the property, with a repair plan created by June 7, 2011.
¶14. Further, both the PDA and the city ordinances require approval from the Architectural
Review Board prior to submitting these items to the Board for approval,7 and Baymeadows
received approval before submitting to the Board. Then, Baymeadows presented its plans
to the Board, and the Board denied them, stating only that Baymeadows “failed to provide
an adequate safety plan, erosion control plan, interior remodeling plan and did not provide
the agreed camera inspection and repair plan of the sewer lines.”
6
Id. at § 13-8-3(A)-(F).
7
Ridgeland, Miss., Site Plan Review Checklist, ¶¶ 23-24.
7
¶15. As a preliminary matter, we agree that Baymeadows’ compliance with the PDA and
its ability to submit repair plans for approval under the city ordinances are two distinct issues.
Ridgeland cannot use a criminal pretrial diversion agreement as a basis to deny
Baymeadows’ right to make repairs to its property. If Baymeadows did not comply with the
terms of the PDA, Ridgeland’s only remedy is to resume prosecution. And if Baymeadows
adequately complied with the city ordinances, then Ridgeland should have approved
Baymeadows’ submissions. Though the PDA expressly incorporated all of the documents
which the Board deemed inadequate, we find Ridgeland also could have required these items
under the ordinances.
¶16. Ridgeland’s development-review procedures state that applicants must submit certain
plans and drawings to the building official for review prior to applying for a building permit.8
Section 13-8-3(F) of Ridgeland’s development-review procedures provides that the city may
request “such other data as may be required by the Building Official or City Engineer to
ensure that the purposes of this Section are satisfied.” 9 Thus, Ridgeland may
require–consistent with “such other data” in Section 13-8-3(F)– a safety plan, erosion control
plan, interior remodeling plan, camera inspection, and repair plan of the sewer lines.
¶17. Furthermore, Baymeadows corresponded only with the Department of Community
Development concerning the documents it needed to supply prior to submitting its plans to
8
Ridgeland, Miss., Developmental Review Procedure § 13-8-3.
9
Id. at § 13-8-3(F).
8
the Architectural Review Board. Specifically, on May 12, 2011, Alan Hart, the Director of
Community Development, wrote to Baymeadows indicating that the Public Works and
Community Development Departments requested that Baymeadows submit fifteen additional
items. The letter listed David Williams, the city engineer, as part of the Public Works
Department, and it listed Chris Ramsey, the building official, as part of the Community
Development Office. After submitting the additional items, Alan Hart further advised
Baymeadows that the city planner and the building official had again reviewed Baymeadows’
submissions and had found them complete. This correspondence indicates that the building
official requested all documents necessary for submission of Baymeadows repair plans, in
accordance with Section 13-8-3(F). Thus, Ridgeland properly requested the documents not
expressly provided for in accordance with Section 13-8-3(F), which allows “such other data
as may be required by the Building Official or City Engineer . . . .” 10
¶18. The Board, however, claimed that Baymeadows failed to submit a camera inspection
and repair plan of the sewer lines. Though, as stated above, Ridgeland could have required
these items under the ordinances, Ridgeland never requested that Baymeadows include a
camera inspection and sewer-repair plan in its submissions. The building official or city
engineer would have had to request these items specifically, since the ordinances do not
expressly require them–which they did not.11 The city planner confirmed that Baymeadows
10
Id.
11
Id. at §13-8-3(A)-(F).
9
had submitted a complete repair-plan proposal without either of these items. Thus, the Board
could not base its denial on items it never requested. Though the Board cannot consider the
PDA as a basis for denying Baymeadows’ right to receive approval of its repair plans, we
find that the Board could have required the additional items in accordance with Section 13-8-
3-(F) of Ridgeland’s city ordinances.
The Board improperly denied Baymeadows’ proposed repair plans.
¶19. Even if the Board properly considered Baymeadows’ proposal under the ordinances,
and not the PDA, the Board put forth no rationale as to why it deemed Baymeadows’ safety
plan, erosion-control plan, and interior remodeling plan “inadequate.” Instead, in its minutes,
the Board merely made the conclusory statement that Baymeadows “fail[ed] to provide an
adequate safety plan, erosion control plan, [and] interior remodeling plan.”
¶20. This Court has explained that “the great weight of authority holds it to be a better form
for a fact-finding administrative agency or commission to make a finding of facts on which
to base an award or reject a claim.”12 If the commission fails to make such findings of fact,
“the reviewing court is in the awkward position of trying to ferret out sufficient evidence
from the record to avoid holding that the order of the commission is arbitrary and capricious
or that it is based on substantial evidence.” 13
12
Duckworth v. Miss. State Bd. of Pharmacy, 583 So. 2d 200, 202 (Miss. 1991) (citing
Fortune Furniture Mfg. Co. Inc. v. Sullivan, 279 So. 2d 644, 647 (Miss. 1973)).
13
Duckworth, 583 So. 2d at 202 (citing Fortune Furniture Mfg. Co. Inc., 279 So. 2d at
647).
10
¶21. We have applied this concept specifically to determinations made by a board of
supervisors.14 In Harrison v. Mayor and Board of Aldermen of City of Batesville, a board
approved a zoning variance which, under the Batesville Code, required a finding that the
party seeking a variance suffered “practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships. . . .” 15 In
granting the variance, the Board simply stated that the “variance is necessary in order to
avoid practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship. . . ” but it did not “shed any light upon
what practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships existed.” 16 There, we found that the
board “merely provided a conclusion with no finding of fact,” and we determined that
“‘[f]indings of fact which show the actual grounds of a decision are necessary for an
intelligent review of a quasi-judicial or administrative determination.’” 17
¶22. Similarly, here, the Board merely stated that Baymeadows’ submissions were
“inadequate,” but it did not provide any explanation in its minutes as to what made them
inadequate. We find it impossible to complete an intelligent review of the Board’s
determination without knowing why it deemed the safety plan, erosion-control plan, and
interior remodeling plan inadequate. As such, we cannot determine if the Board’s decision
was supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary and capricious, illegal, or beyond the
14
Harrison v. Mayor and Bd. of Aldermen of City of Batesville, 73 So. 3d 1145 (Miss.
2011).
15
Id. at 1153.
16
Id.
17
Id. (citing Matter of Gilbert v. Stevens, 284 A.D. 1016 (N.Y.A.D. 3 Dept. 1954).
11
power of the Board. As we did in Harrison,18 we find it necessary to remand this case to the
Board for a hearing to supply the specific findings which supported the Board’s decision.
¶23. Baymeadows also makes the argument that the Board’s denial violated both
Baymeadows’ Fourteenth Amendment substantive due-process and equal-protection rights
and resulted in a “taking” under the Fifth Amendment. We find it imprudent to decide these
issues prior to reviewing the specific facts underlying the Board’s decision to deny the
proposed repair plans, as these arguments may be affected as well.
Consideration of damages is premature.
¶24. At the time of this appeal, Baymeadows expressed concern that it may become
divested of its property before the conclusion of this appeal, rendering this Court unable to
order specific performance. As predicted, in August 2013, Baymeadows lost its apartment
complex in foreclosure proceedings. Baymeadows argues that this Court still may rule on
the bill of exceptions and remand the case for damages under the Mississippi Tort Claims Act
and other civil proceedings. Because we have no determination on the record before us
pertaining to damages, any decision concerning damages would be both advisory and
premature.
CONCLUSION
¶25. Because the Ridgeland Board of Aldermen provided no factual basis for its decision,
we reverse its denial of Baymeadows’ repair plans, as well as the affirmance of the Madison
18
Harrison, 73 So. 3d. at 1156.
12
County Circuit Court and we remand this case to the Board either to issue the permit or
provide an appropriate factual basis for its denial.
¶26. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
WALLER, C.J., RANDOLPH, P.J., LAMAR, KITCHENS, CHANDLER,
PIERCE, KING AND COLEMAN, JJ., CONCUR.
13