## Facts

- The City of Ridgeland adopted a 2009 comprehensive plan and, in February 2014, replaced its prior zoning ordinance and map with a new comprehensive zoning ordinance and map.
- Under the 2014 ordinance, the tract later selected for a Costco was zoned C-2 (General Commercial), which did not allow certain higher-intensity uses (including fueling stations and several drive-through-related uses).
- Costco sought to develop a large retail store on a C-2 site along Highland Colony Parkway, but key desired uses were not allowed under the C-2 use list.
- In June 2015, the City adopted an amendment creating “Large Master Planned Commercial Development” (LMPCD) as a permitted use within C-2 districts, thereby authorizing uses previously prohibited in C-2.
- Nearby residents challenged the amendment as a project-driven change inconsistent with the City’s comprehensive planning and as a preferential zoning change for the Costco site.

## Issues

1. Whether the LMPCD “text amendment,” in substance, constituted a rezoning subject to Mississippi’s rezoning standards rather than a permissible general ordinance amendment.
2. Whether the City’s action amounted to impermissible spot zoning inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and undertaken primarily to benefit a particular development.

## Decision

- The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the circuit court.
- The court held the LMPCD amendment and related changes were illegal rezoning and impermissible spot zoning.
- The court invalidated the ordinance changes that enabled the proposed Costco development.

## Legal Principles

- Courts assess zoning actions by their practical effect; a purported text amendment closely tied to a particular site and project may be treated as a rezoning.
- A rezoning is valid only if supported by evidence of (a) mistake in the original zoning classification, or (b) a material change in neighborhood character plus a public need for rezoning.
- Zoning must be consistent with the municipality’s comprehensive plan; rapid departures from a recently adopted comprehensive scheme weigh against findings of mistake or changed conditions.
- Spot zoning—preferential treatment for a small area inconsistent with comprehensive planning and primarily benefiting a particular landowner—is unlawful.
- Even under deferential review, a zoning decision lacking evidentiary support and conflicting with comprehensive planning may be deemed arbitrary and capricious.

## Conclusion

The court struck down Ridgeland’s LMPCD amendment because it functioned as a site-specific rezoning adopted to accommodate a single development, lacked the required justification of mistake or changed conditions with public need, and operated as impermissible spot zoning inconsistent with the City’s comprehensive zoning framework.


Beard v. City of Ridgeland, 245 So. 3d 380 (Miss. 2018)