Sinquefield v. City of Ridgeland

1

STACY SINQUEFIELD APPELLANT v. THE CITY OF RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI APPELLEE

No. 2022-CA-01276-COA

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

July 16, 2024

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/01/2022.

MADISON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT HON. STEVE S. RATCLIFF III TRIAL JUDGE:

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JAMES MORTIMER CREWS III.

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JERRY L. MILLS JOHN PRESTON SCANLON ZACHARY LEWIS GIDDY.

BEFORE CARLTON, P.J., McDONALD AND LAWRENCE, JJ.

LAWRENCE, J.

¶1. The zoning board for the City of Ridgeland determined that a piece of property owned by Stacy Sinquefield violated Section 200.03E of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ridgeland because the property lacked the requisite acreage to maintain her two horses. The mayor and board of aldermen upheld this decision.^[1] Sinquefield appealed to the Madison County Circuit Court, which affirmed that decision. She now appeals again. We hold that the City of Ridgeland's interpretation of the ordinance was not based on substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, we reverse and render the judgment of the circuit court.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

¶2. Sinquefield owns a residence and 2.2 acres located at 300 Hillview Drive in Ridgeland, Mississippi. She has owned the property since December 29, 2005. By the date of the events at issue, she owned and kept two horses on her property for about four years without incident. On September 1, 2021, the City of Ridgeland's Code Enforcement Division issued a notice of code violation to Sinquefield. The notice provided the following:

Zoning requirements do not permit livestock on property with less than 3 acres. Horses must be removed from property and kept at another location.

The zoning ordinance at issue is Section 200.03E of the Official Zoning Ordinance of the City of Ridgeland. This ordinance permits the following:

Breeding, raising, and feeding of grazing livestock, (i.e horses, cattle, sheep, goats, mules, etc.) provided that each such animal herein defined as "grazing livestock" shall be kept on a tract or lot of three (3) acres of land or greater.

On September 27, 2021, Sinquefield met with Georgia Myrick, a code enforcement officer, Jordan Lohman, a city planner for the City of Ridgeland, and the attorney for the City of Ridgeland in an effort to explain why she thought she should not have to remove her horses from her property. Apparently, this meeting did not resolve the issues the City was raising after four years of the horses being there. Sinquefield appealed the administrative decision of the code enforcement division to the City of Ridgeland's Zoning Board.

¶3. On November 1, 2021, Sinquefield entered into grazing lease agreements with the owners of three separate land tracts adjacent to hers.^[2] On November 4, 2021, a hearing was conducted with the zoning board. At the hearing, Sinquefield presented evidence of the three separate grazing lease agreements.^[3] Sinquefield argued that those agreements allowed her 7.985 contiguous acres for her two horses, which exceeded the three acres required for zoning purposes. Additionally, Sinquefield argued that the zoning ordinance was susceptible to two different interpretations: either that a tract must be at least three acres for every one" horses, cattle, sheep, goats, mules, etc." or that keeping" horses, cattle, sheep, goats, mules, etc." of any number requires a tract of at least three acres. She maintained that under either of these interpretations, her grazing lease agreements brought her into compliance with the ordinance. The zoning board's meeting minutes indicate the following:

Jim Crews, attorney for [Sinquefield], was present on behalf of [Sinquefield]. Mr. Crews addressed the [z]oning [b]oard and presented to the board that there are two reasonable readings of the ordinance: first, three acres per horse, or second, three-acres total lot. Mr. Crews stated [Sinquefield] has secured grazing leases from neighbors making the total grazing area 7.95 acres.

City Attorney Jerry Mills advised that Alan Hart made the determination that leases to acquire additional acreage would not solve the issue and stated the question is whether the lots can be combined to satisfy requirements of the [z]oning [o]rdinance.

There was discussion among the board members and others present regarding the interpretation of leasing of neighbors' property and subdivision covenants.

After discussion, Michelle Caballero moved to affirm the administrative determination of the Ridgeland Zoning Official that leased lots cannot be combined to satisfy the requirements of the [z]oning [o]rdinance and that the property located at 300 Hillview Drive, Ridgeland Mississippi is in violation [of] Section 200.03 of the City of Ridgeland Zoning Ordinance. Jim Collette seconded the motion. Michelle Caballero, Theresa Kennedy, Judy Rice and Jim Collette voted to affirm. Drew Malone abstained. The Chairman declared the motion carried.

Accordingly, the zoning board voted to uphold the decision of the code enforcement division.

¶4. On November 9, 2021, Sinquefield appealed the zoning board's decision to the mayor and board of aldermen. During a hearing on January 4, 2022, Sinquefield introduced evidence of the grazing lease agreements but also presented three other Ridgeland landowners who were in violation of Section 200.03E of the zoning ordinance. The evidence Sinquefield introduced was of other Ridgeland landowners who housed animals on their land in violation of the acreage requirements. This evidence was comprised of (1) a 11.36-acre tract that maintained four horses and fifteen goats, (2) a 15.3-acre tract that maintained nineteen cows, and (3) a 4.6-acre tract that maintained three horses. Sinquefield asserted that the code enforcement division took no action against these homeowners and, therefore, violated her rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. The zoning board did not present any evidence to rebut this evidence. The meeting minutes indicated the following:

Next came the 300 Hillview Drive - Public Hearing for Zoning Board Appeal. The Mayor opened the public hearing and the City adjudicated that proper and timely notice was advertised by state law. A copy of the notice is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". The Mayor asked the audience if there was anyone present that would like to speak that did not sign the list and there was no response; a copy of the list is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Alan Hart, Public Works Director/Community Development Director, made a presentation with regard to horses being maintained at 300 Hillview Drive on a plot of land less than the required acreage per the adopted ordinance. Jim Crews, the attorney for Stacy Sinquefield, then made a presentation and offered documents, which are attached hereto as Exhibit "C". The Mayor then closed the public hearing.

Alderman Chuck Gautier moved to uphold the ruling by the Zoning Board. The motion was seconded by Alderman D.J. Smith and a vote was taken thereon as follows:

Vote: Aye(s): Alderman Chuck Gautier, Alderman Wesley Hamlin, Alderman Ken Heard, Alderman Kevin Holder, Alderman D.J. Smith, Alderman

Bill Lee

Nay(s): None

Absent: Alderman Brian Ramsey

The Mayor then declared the Motion carried.

Accordingly, the mayor and board of aldermen voted to uphold the zoning board's decision and ordered Sinquefield to remove her horses from her property.

¶5. On January 12, 2022, Sinquefield timely appealed to the Madison County Circuit Court. On November 9, 2022, a hearing took place. At that hearing, pertinent to the issues on appeal, Sinquefield argued the City's decision was arbitrary and capricious because it "didn't offer any kind of support or reasoning for its determination," and "there is nothing in the ordinance that makes any distinction between whether you own the property where you're keeping your horses or whether you lease it or whether there's a combination of both."^[4] Furthermore, Sinquefield argued that there was "no evidence in the record" that land cannot be aggregated to satisfy the acreage requirement. Sinquefield noted the following:

The city is going to claim that these three owners are grandfathered in. That has never been presented in either hearing. That was never - - that's not part of the record. There's no evidence of that in the record, and we do not think the [c]ourt is entitled to consider this claim.

As Sinquefield suggested, the City argued that those three other properties were "grandfathered in" before the ordinance was adopted.^[5]

¶6. As to whether the grazing leases counted toward the requisite acreage, the City argued the following:

We're not talking about agricultural pastures where all eight of these total acres would be enclosed by a central fence. We're talking about people's yards. This is residential estates where they're going to have - - and they're cordoned off with fences where they're all separated. And the question was presented to [sic] Sinquefield in front of the board of aldermen, "Are you going to be able to have all of these horses inside this same enclosure at once?" And if I recall correctly, and [Sinquefield's attorney] can correct my memory if I'm mistaken on rebuttal, but I believe the answer was, "Well, no, we're going to have to have them here for a little while and then we'll move them to here and then we'll move them to here."^[6] They don't have one - -now, I think you asked if it was contiguous. It is contiguous, but they don't have one enclosed pasture which is contemplated for the grazing of cattle. We're talking about people's yards inside the Bridgewater subdivision where people are complaining about livestock grazing because it's not in an agricultural zone.

Later the following exchange took...