IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF MADISON COUNTY, MISSISSIPPI

GERALD EMMETT BEARD,

CHARLES JULES MICHEL,
HAROLD JOSEPH BYRD,
NILS KEREM MUNGAN,
GEORGE THATCHER SHEPARD,JR.,
MATTHEW DENSON DeSHAZO,
WILLIAM M.ADEN,
MR.THOMAS I. RICE,III, and
JOEL G.PAYNE,JR.

_~

~s

f ~

~ ~ .~
If
I~~ ~ ~~
~ i.

h
~
~..
~

~ is

PLAINTIFFS
NO. G~."p~OI"!'Z~-1~~

VS.
CITY OF RIDGELAND,MISSISSIPPI

DEFENDANT

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

Plaintiffs Gerald Emmett Beard, Charles Jules Michel, Harold Joseph Byrd, Nils Kerem
Mungan, George Thatcher Shepard, Jr., Matthew Denson DeShazo, William M. Aden, Thomas I.
Rice, III, and Joel G. Payne, Jr., residents of the Montrachet, Dinsmor, Canterbury, Windrush,
and

Greenwood Plantation

Subdivisions in

Ridgeland, Mississippi (the "Ridgeland

Homeowners"), file this Complaint for Declaratory Judgment against the City of Ridgeland,
Mississippi ("Ridgeland" or the "City") and request that the Court declare invalid and
unenforceable a June 2, 2015 Zoning Ordinance amendment adopted by the City without notice
and for the specific purpose of benefitting a favored developer attempting to locate a Costco
development on Highland Colony Parkway. Additionally, Ridgeland Homeowners request that
the Court declare that a May 6, 2014 Resolution of the City for the Application by Renaissance
at Colony Park, LLC for the Tourism Incentive Grant Program does not apply to Renaissance
Phase III, which is the site of the proposed Costco development on Highland Colony Parkway.

02207274

INTRODUCTION
1.

On June 2, 2015, the City of Ridgeland adopted an ordinance ("Zoning Ordinance

Amendment") amending the Official Zoning Ordinance and Map of the City of Ridgeland,
Mississippi ("2014 Zoning Ordinance") by creating a new Permissible Use in districts zoned C-2
(General Commercial). (See Exhibit A, Zoning Ordinance Amendment; Exhibit B, 2014 Zoning
Ordinance; Exhibit C, 2014 Zoning Map; Exhibit D, June 2, 2015 Minutes). The Zoning
Ordinance Amendment was initiated by developer Andrew Mattiace ("Mattiace") who requested
that a specific parcel of property on Highland Colony Parkway, south of Old Agency Road, be
rezoned in such a way as to accommodate his Costco development (a/k/a Renaissance Phase III).
After months of secret, closed-door meetings between the City, Mattiace, and Costco, the City
passed the Zoning Ordinance Amendment without providing the public, including neighboring
landowners, the required notice and opportunity to be heard. Throughout this time period,
Mayor Gene McGee made repeated representations to the media and Ridgeland's citizens that
Co~tco way just a "rumor."
2.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment, which the City creatively disguised as a

comprehensive amendment to all C-2 (General Commercial) districts within the City, was
specifically designed to satisfy Mattiace's and Costco's zoning requirements for the proposed
Costco development site on Highland Colony Parkway. In fact, Mattiace's attorney wrote
critical components of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, including specific provisions
mandated by Costco.
3.

By framing the .zoning amendment/variance as aCity-initiated comprehensive

ordinance amendment, the City was attempting to circumvent the Zoning Ordinance's stringent
requirements for approving individual-initiated rezoning applications. In doing so, the City

oaao~a~4

failed to consider, much less satisfy, numerous requirements under Mississippi law and its own
Zoning Ordinance prior to rezoning.
4.

The City's manipulation of the Zoning Ordinance to accommodate the rezoning

mandates of Mattiace and Costco disconnected the citizens of Ridgeland from the process and
ignored the public interest factors a Mississippi municipality is required to take into account
prior to taking such actions.
5.

The proposed Costco development would be located on a 45-acre tract along the

east side of Highland Colony Parkway, south of Old Agency Road, and would consist of a
Costco as the anchor store with a number of additional commercial tenants. The development
calls for over 300,000 square feet of indoor commercial space and over 1,600 parking spaces (the
"Costco Development"). This development would significantly increase the traffic already
generated by the developed phases of The Renaissance. The Costco Development would also
negatively impact residential property values, crime, the historic and peaceful nature of the area,
quality ~f life, noise, littei, and the ability of children and adults to ride their bikes to end from
their neighborhoods. Indeed, Ridgeland Homeowners will be negatively impacted in these ways
if the Costco Development is permitted to proceed. Not surprisingly, over 2,400 Ridgeland
citizens have signed a petition opposing the Costco Development.
PARTIES
6.

Plaintiffs Gerald Emmett Beard, Charles Jules Michel, Harold Joseph Byrd, Nils

Kerem Mungan, George Thatcher Shepard, Jr., Matthew Denson DeShazo, William M. Aden,
Thomas I. Rice, III, and Joel G. Payne, Jr. are residents of the Montrachet, Dinsmor, Canterbury,
Windrush, and Greenwood Plantation Subdivisions in Ridgeland, Mississippi who will be
negatively impacted by the Costco Development.

ozzon~4

7.

Defendant City of Ridgeland, Mississippi is a municipality incorporated and

existing under the laws of the State of Mississippi. Ridgeland's City Hall is located at 304
Highway 51, Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157.
.TURISDICTION AND VENUE
8.

Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. 9-7-81.

9.

Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. 11-45-25.

FACTS

10.

The Mississippi Tourism Project Incentive Program, Miss. Code Ann. 57-26-1,

et seq.(the "Tourism Act"), is administered by the Mississippi Development Authority("MDA")

and provides significant tax incentives for developments that qualify as "cultural retail
attractions," which are projects (a) that combine destination shopping with cultural or historical
interpretive elements specific to Mississippi; (b) contain a minimum private investment of at
least $50,000,000.00; (c) are located within "qualified resort areas" as that term is defined in
Mips. Code inn. 67 1-5; and (d) ire part of amaster-planned development. Far purposes of
the allegations in this lawsuit, the qualified resort status and master planned development
requirements are significant.
11.

The Mississippi Department of Revenue is charged with evaluating applications

for "qualified resort status," See Miss. Code Ann. 67-5-1, while MDA has the sole authority to
approve projects applying for government benefits under the Tourism Act and to qualify projects
as "cultural retail attractions." See Miss. Code Ann. 57-27-5.
12.

One of the major incentives of the Tourism Act was to provide developers of

"cultural retail attractions" tax rebates equal to up to 30% of the total investment. See Miss.
Code Ann. 57-26-3. Thus, a "cultural retail attraction" with a $100 million total investment

oaao~2~a

could recoup $30 million of that investment through the rebate program. By statute, MDA lost
its authority to approve any projects or applications for "cultural retail attraction" status on June
30, 2014. In effect, the program died on that date.
13.

Andrew Mattiace is the developer of The Renaissance at Colony Park on

Highland Colony Parkway. Phases I of The Renaissance consists of what one sees when driving
by The Renaissance shopping center today the C Spire and Regions Buildings, a parking
garage, and the various shopping outlets bounded by Highland Colony Parkway, Steed Road, I55, and Old Agency Road:
,~_
~~

.v ~,-~~-~1

~~-..^C~~
,
.
,

r_

~ F+sCr~Yi f frs .

~~iyy3
~,~ry

ft.~tSlnM,y.'l2'i G~

'~
'
q

~.

6LLlC3~

'~ .Hi..A~ :~

t
~'?~

~~~~ I

ed_~
KJaSBI

~
L~}!
i

t.~t;T

~, a ~`
ZT

~
~

~'
,~_
,'.

._
t

14.

...

On December 23, 2013, Mattiace submitted an application ("Application") to the

MDA for Tourism Act benefits for the Renaissance at Colony Park, LLC ("RAC"). The
Application identified the "Project Address" as 1000 Highland Colony Parkway, Ridgeland,
Mississippi which is the site of Renaissance Phase I and presumably where he planned to
develop Phase II. In the Application, Mattiace represented to the MDA that RAC acquired the
subject property in November 2006. Phase III, which is the subject of this lawsuit and the site
for the proposed Costco Development, is not located at 1000 Highland Colony Parkway.
oaao~a~a

Instead, it is located south of Old Agency Road on Highland Colony approximately /

1 a of a mile
from Phase I. Thus, it was not the subject of the Application.

Proposed site for

Costco Wholesale
~i
,
t
y,

~`
y
y
i~

0
c3
1
r
rn
S

15.

At the time Mattiace's Application was submitted to the MDA, Phase III the

future proposed site of the Costco Development - was not part of a master planned development
and it did not have "qualified resort status," as required by the Tourism Act. Furthermore, it was
not properly za~~ed for the Castro D~velo~nient. 5ignificai~tly, it did clot gain any of tllesc
designations, or obtain a modified zoning, until after the expiration of the "cultural retail
attraction" program on June 30, 2014.
16.

In 2014, the City's Mayor, Gene McGee ("McGee"), and/or its Director of

Community Development, Alan Hart ("Hart"), began having secret discussions with Mattiace
and Costco representatives regarding the possibility of locating a Costco in Ridgeland. Costco's
representatives and Mattiace targeted the proposed Phase III site (depicted above) for a number
of reasons, including but not limited to its ability to accommodate the development and
potentially qualify for Tourism Act benefits.

oazo~2~a

17.

On May 6, 2014, the City approved a resolution ("2014 Resolution") to allow

sales tax dollars from the Renaissance Project to be diverted to the Mississippi Tourism Project
Sales Tax Incentive Fund, for the benefit of RAC,a Mattiace entity, pursuant to the Tourism Act.
The 2014 Resolution covered only the RAC property north of Old Agency Road and only
"property currently owned by Renaissance at Colony Park, LLC." The 2014 Resolution did not
cover the Costco Development site, Phase III. To that end, upon information and belief, RAC
did not own the proposed Phase III site on the date the 2014 Resolution was approved, nor did
any other Mattiace-affiliated entity. Thus, the 2014 Resolution was not intended to nor can it
apply to the Phase III, Costco Development site.
18.

On June 10, 2014, the MDA issued its "Order of the Mississippi Development

Authority Directing the Issuance to Renaissance at Colony Park, LLC, of Mississippi Tourism
Incentive Program Certificate" ("Certificate"). Consistent with Mattiace's Application and the
City's 2014 Resolution, the Certificate noted that the "Eligible Site Location" was 1000
Highland Colony Parkway, Ridgcland, M5 39157. The Ccrtificatc did not covcr the praposcd
site of the Costco Development -Phase III. Thus, to the extent the City diverts or agrees to
divert tax revenues arising from the Costco Development, the City would be acting unlawfully,
unconstitutionally, and ultra vires.
19.

When McGee and Hart began having discussions with Mattiace and Costco, they

fully understood the public outrage that would occur if their plans for the Costco Development,
in such close proximity to numerous residential neighborhoods, were to come to light. As a
result, City officials coined the phrase "Santa Claus" to refer to the Costco project so as to shield
their discussions from the public and keep the whole process a secret.l City officials have

i
As predicted, when McGee finally did reveal Project Santa Claus to Ridgeland citizens at Ridgeland High
School on August 12, 2015, he was "subjected to boos and catcalls as he discussed the project."

ozzo~2~a

attempted to hide behind "economic development" exceptions to Mississippi's Open Meetings

Act, even after the City's own long-time City attorney stated in public and under oath that there
is no "economic development" exception to discussions with private parties. When asked
whether discussions were underway to possibly locate a Costco in Ridgeland, McGee flatly and
repeatedly said through August 2015 that these were "rumors" and that he "knew nothing
about it" even though he knew the discussions were much more than mere rumors and he was
actively "bending over backwards to assist [Costco] with all of [its] needs." McGee refused to
disclose the City's discussions with Costco so as to immunize the City's actions from public
scrutiny.
20.

The behind-closed-doors meetings and discussions between Ridgeland officials,

Costco, and Mattiace, continued throughout 2014 and into 2015. On February 27, 2015, at an
official Ridgeland retreat where official City business was conducted outside of public view and
without official minutes being taken as required by state law, McGee informed the Board of
Aldcrmcn that Costca would be the anchor tcnant in the new phasc of The Rcnaissancc
development. McGee instructed Ridgeland's officials to keep this information strictly
confidential and not to divulge it to anyone.
21.

As discussions developed further, Mattiace, Costco, and Ridgeland realized that

Ridgeland's Zoning Ordinance did not permit the construction of a Costco and its satellite stores
at the desired location. In other words, the construction of a Costco at this location would be
inconsistent with the 2014 Zoning Ordinance Ridgeland had just adopted on February 4, 2014.2

Curiously, Ridgeland also adopted the 2014 Zoning Ordinance and Map without notice, although the
2
ordinance specifically targets multifamily properties with an amortization provision which mandates the demolition
of six operating, economically viable apartment complexes and requires the elimination of hundreds of other units in
complexes the City deems undesirable. The City is currently a defendant in at least 9 separate lawsuits challenging
the 2014 Zoning Ordinance and Map.

oaao~a~a

Upon this realization, Mattiace asked that the City grant him a zoning change and/or variance so
as to accommodate the Costco Development.

To maintain the secrecy of the Costco

Development and avoid public scrutiny, the City manipulated the Zoning Ordinance by
characterizing the rezoning of the Costco Development site as comprehensive amendment, and
in doing so, tried to avoid the clear dictates of Mississippi law and its own Zoning Ordinance
regarding public notice and strict prerequisites for rezonings.
A.

The City of Ridgeland Attempted to Skirt Public Notice and Rezoning

Requirements by Amending Permitted Uses in its C-2 (General Commercial)
Districts.
22.

The City's own Zoning Ordinance and Mississippi's statutory, constitutional, and

common law contain specific public notice requirements for rezonings. Additionally, both the
City's Zoning Ordinance and Mississippi law require certain showings and facts before a
rezoning may occur. In an effort to maintain the secrecy of Project Santa Claus and avoid the
anticipated opposition to the Costco Development, the City ignored many of these requirements
and inaccuratcly framcd the rczoning as a City-initiatcd comprchensivc Zoning Ordinance
amendment.
23.

Specifically, on June 2, 2015, Ridgeland's Mayor and Board of Aldermen adopted

a Zoning Ordinance Amendment creating and defining a "Large Master Planned Commercial
Development" as:
Any large commercial development consisting of a group of one (1) or more
contiguous separately owned or ground leased tracts or parcels that contain,
among the group of tracts or parcels, at least one building for occupancy for
retail/wholesale purposes exceeding 100,000 square feet of heated and cooled
space for the indoor display and sale of goods, a site with a minimum of 15
contiguous acres, access to an Arterial Street, and approved by the Mayor and
Board of Aldermen which may or may not include conditions. Large Master
Planned Commercial Developments may include any of the uses permitted in the
underlying Zoning District as well as Service Stations; Banks,. branch banks,
drive-thi~u ATM's, and other banking facilities; Food product and carry-out and
oazo~z~a

delivery stores, laundry and dry cleaning pickup stations; Fast Food Restaurant
with drive-thru; Fast Casual Restaurant with drive-thru; Pharmacy with a drivethru; and outdoor display of goods in designated areas approved by the Mayor and
Board of Aldermen in one (1) or more locations not exceeding an aggregate of
15,000 square feet.
24.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment then added "Large Master Planned

Commercial Developments" as a Permitted Use in G2 (General Commercial) districts. The

Zoning Ordinance Amendment also changed the definition of"Service Station" to accommodate
the Costco Development.
25.

Several things are significant about the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. First, it

was adopted directly in response to Mattiace's request that the City modify the zoning of the
Phase III site to accommodate his Costco Development. Indeed, Mattiace's attorney played a
critical role in writing the Zoning Ordinance Amendment so that it would satisfy Costco's
zoning requirements. Second, although the Zoning Ordinance Amendment purports to change
the Permitted Uses in all C-2(General Commercial) districts, its realistic, practical, and intended
iiilpact is only on the Costco Dcvclopmcnt site. In fact, a Costco representative recently stated
that there were no other undeveloped commercial tracts in Ridgeland that could accommodate
Costco Development. Third, by changing the Permitted Uses in C-2 (General Commercial)
districts, Ridgeland has accomplished a rezoning and change to its Zoning Map that is
inconsistent with the Ridgeland Area Master Plan and the City's 2009 Comprehensive Plan, in
violation of its own Zoning Ordinance and Mississippi state law.
B.

Ridgeland Fails to Satisfy Requirements for Rezoning

26.

In approving the Mattiace-initiated rezoning of the Costco Development site, the

City failed to satisfy numerous key requirements for rezoning. For example, under Section
600.10.B of Ridgeland's Zoning Ordinance "Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Text or the

ozao~z~a

10

Official Zoning Map(Re-Zoning)" applications for zoning ordinance amendments are required
to meet strict standards. Specifically, Section 600.10 provides that "Re-zonings must pass
threshold standards: no proposed zoning amendment will receive favorable recommendation
unless it passes the following threshold standards for a valid spot zoning:
(a) The proposal must not be a small parcel of land singled out for special and
privileged treatment.
(b) The proposed change must be in the public interest and not only for the
benefit of a land owner(s).
(c) The proposed change is consistent with all elements of the comprehensive
plan and sound planning principles as follows:
1. If a development proposal falls within one of the use and/or residential
density categories indicated on the Future Land Use Map, the Zoning
Board and the Mayor and Board of Aldermen shall determine if the
proposal is consistent with the plan.
2. If a development proposal is not consistent with the Future Land Use
Map, the Zoning Board and the Mayor and Board of Aldermen will
review the plan's written policies to determine whether the proposal
would undermine or conflict with them. If the Mayor and Board of
Aldermen determines that the proposal would not conflict with or
undermine the plan's policies, they shall find the proposal consistent
with the plan.
3. If an applicant's property for re-zoning falls adjacent to a district
having the desired zoning classification, the rezoning proposal may be
determined to be consistent as an extension of the adjacent property's
zoning classification.
(d) The proposed change must not create an isolated district unrelated and
incompatible to adjacent districts."(Ex. B at 600.10.B).
27.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment fails all of these threshold requirements as it

applies only to a small tract of land and was enacted to benefit Andrew Mattiace and Costco and
not the public. Additionally, the Costco Development is entirely inconsistent with Ridgeland's
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan, an analysis the City did not even undertake prior

oaao~a~a

11

to adopting the Zoning Ordinance Amendment. Furthermore, the Costco Development, which
would double the traffic already generated by Renaissance Phases I and II, is entirely
incompatible with the numerous residential neighborhoods located in close proximity.
28.

However, even if these threshold standards were satisfied, the Zoning Ordinance

Amendment would still be improper. Section 600.10.B of the Zoning Ordinance provides that
passing the above threshold standards merely determines if the re-zoning goes further: If the rezoning application does not. pass the above threshold standards, the proposed amendment will be
considered to be an invalid spot zoning and will be denied on that basis. If it does satisfy them,
the Board of Aldermen are required to consider:
(a) Whether the existing land use pattern will change and/or possibly increase
or overtax the load on public facilities such as schools, utilities, or streets;
(b) Whether existing zoning district boundaries are illogically drawn in
relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change;
(c) Whether changed or changing conditions made the passage of the
proposed re-zoning necessary. That is, has the character of the
neighborhood changed to such an extent ~s to justify recl~ssific~tion, end
is evidence of a PUBLIC NEED for the re-zoning in that location?
(d) Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions
and/or property values in the neighborhood;
(e) Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic
congestion or otherwise affect public safety;
(f~ Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in
accordance with existing zoning;
(g) Whether there is evidence of a mistake in the original zoning due to a
clerical error;
(h) Whether the proposed change is speculative. A proposed change must
have a definite zoning district in mind as well as a proposed intent or
purpose for the proposed zoning district.

oaao~a~a

12

(i) There is convincing demonstration that all uses permitted under the
proposed district classification would be appropriate in the area included
in the proposed change.(When a new district designation is assigned, any
use permitted in the district is allowable, so long as it meets district
requirements, and not merely the uses that applicants state they intend to
make of the property involved.)
(j) There is convincing demonstration that the character of the neighborhood
will not be materially and adversely affected by any use permitted in the
proposed change.(Ex. B at 600.10.B).
29.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment fails to satisfy these requirements. It was not

necessary to correct a mistake in the original zoning, nor was it necessary due to a change in the
character of the neighborhood or public need. There was no demonstration, much less a
convincing one, that the new uses to be allowed in the district were appropriate to the area, that
the character of the neighborhood would not be materially and adversely affected by the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment, or that the property could not be used in accordance with the existing
zoning. To the contrary, all preliminary studies and common sense indicate that the Zoning
Ordinance Amendment is certain to adversely affect living conditions and property values,
increase traffic congestion, diminish public safety, and overtax municipal services. However, as
reflected in its June 2, 2015 Minutes, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen failed to even consider
any of these required factors prior to adopting the rezoning. (Ex. D).
30.

The City's approval of the Zoning Amendment also failed to satisfy the

requirements of Section 600.10.C. That section provides that no amendment to the Official
Zoning Map shall be approved unless the proposed re-zoning meets one of the following criteria:
(a) there was a mistake in the original zoning; or (b) the character of the neighborhood has
changed to such an extent as to justify reclassification, AND that there is a PUBLIC NEED for
the re-zoning." (Ex. B, at 600.10.C). These requirements also appear in Mississippi common

ozao~z~4

13

law. Yet, there was no showing of mistake or a change in the character of the neighborhood to
such an extent as to justify a rezoning and a public need for the rezoning.
31.

Additionally, under Section 600.10.) of Ridgeland's Zoning Ordinance, "[n]o

amendment to the Official Zoning Map or the text of this Ordinance shall become effective until
an Ordinance amending same has been passed by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. Any
Ordinance amending the Official Zoning Map shall contain findings of fact citing evidence
demonstrating compliance with the criteria specified under Section 600.10.0 of this Ordinance."
(Ex. B at 600.10.)). The Zoning Ordinance Amendment fails to satisfy this requirement as it
does not contain any findings of fact citing evidence demonstrating compliance with the above
criteria.
32.

Again, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment fails to satisfy Section 600.10.D, as

well as Mississippi statutory law. Section 600.10.D requires that all proposed re-zonings be
consistent with Ridgeland's Comprehensive Plan: "Section 17-1-9 of the Mississippi Code of
1972, A~ Amended, requires that `zoning regulations shall be made in accordance with a
comprehensive plan .' Accordingly, no amendment to the Official Zoning Map shall be
approved by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen unless the proposed re-zoning is consistent with
all four elements of the adopted Comprehensive Plan of the City of Ridgeland, including the
Goals and Objectives, the Generalized Future Land Use and Transportation Plan, and the
Community Facilities Plan." (Ex. B, at 600.10.D). Ridgeland made no effort to determine
whether the Zoning Ordinance Amendment was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which
it was not.

oazo~a~a

14

C.

Ridgeland Fails to Provide Required Public Notices

33.

Ridgeland's Zoning Ordinance, as well as Mississippi statutory, constitutional,

and common law, require that public notice be given of proposed zoning ordinance amendments.
The City of Ridgeland failed to comply with multiple different notice requirements. Section
600.10.F of Ridgeland's Zoning Ordinance "Notification of Adjacent Property Owners"
requires that:
The applicant shall notify all property owners within 160 feet in all directions
(excluding the rights-of-way of streets or highways) from the lot lines of any
parcel or parcels of land proposed for re-zoning. The applicant shall also notify
all neighborhood organizations registered with the Community Development
Department with geographic boundaries within one thousand (1,000) feet in all
directions, from the lot lines of any parcel or parcels of land proposed for rezoning.
Notification shall be by CERTIFIED MAIL stating the date, time, location and
purpose of the public hearing, in the City of Ridgeland, and shall be mailed to
such property owners fifteen days prior to the public hearing with notification of
receipt of the letter returned to the Director of Community Development or his
designee. The Director of Community Development or his designee shall attach
all notifications of receipt of the letter to the application.(Ex. B at 600.10.F).
34.

Mattiace, Costco, and Ridgeland failed to notify all property owners within 160

feet and all neighborhood organizations within 1,000 feet of the rezoned tract of the proposed
Zoning Ordinance Amendment. In fact, none of the required notices were ever sent, much less
by certified mail or at least 15 days prior to the hearing when the Zoning Ordinance Amendment
was considered and adopted. Consequently, Ridgeland Director of Community Development
failed to attach any certified mail return receipts to the rezoning application.
35.

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 600.15.A of the 2014 Zoning Ordinance,"public

hearings shall be conducted ... for all ... amendments to the text. of the Zoning Ordinance or
amendments to the Official Zoning Map (i.e., re-zoning)." "Whenever a public hearing is
required .., notice of such hearing shall be given by publishing a notice to all interested persons
o2ao~z~a

15

one time at least fifteen days prior to the date fixed for said hearing, such notice to be published
in an official paper or newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ridgeland...." (Ex. B at
615.15.A). These notices must follow prescribed formats. For amendments to the text of the
2014 Zoning Ordinance, the notice must state:
NOTICE OF ZONING HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TO THOSE PARTIES IN INTEREST THAT
THERE WILL BE A HEARING ON (Date), AT (Time), AT THE CITY HALL,
RIDGELAND, MISSISSIPPI, FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING
WHETHER OR NOT THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS SHALL BE MADE
TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RIDGELAND,
MISSISSIPPI:
(Insert Proposed Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Here)
APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Mayor's Signature

City Clerk's signature

36.

Additionally, Miss. Code Ann. 17-1-15 and 17-1-17 require that notices of

hearings regarding zoning ordinance amendments contain the full text of the proposed
amendment or an unambiguous explanation of its substance when printing the full text would be
infeasible. The unambiguous explanation of the substance of the proposed amendment should
inform interested persons of the proposed action.
37.

Contrary to these requirements, the single notice published by Ridgeland on May

14, 2015 stated only:

oaao~a~a

16

uas~c~ a~ az~s~c tea

N6~FtCf i~ #totctry ~1uan ire thane
{r0rtias ~ frMtitti~Bt that i~era wiV! be a
~bttc ha~rfag an Tussct,7y, June Z,
2(Yi5. at 8:Q(} o'dock.Q.M. at the;Gify .
HaH, 304 Ftlghway 54, ftidgelattd. hd$
3Q167,fortho pttrpoao of determink~g
wheth$f am
merts to Sealan 21
~zd 3~t~Crn 41Q t~f ttte 43Zuning
Qrdinance of the City of RiUgefand
anal{ be praratsd'.
The
~s sit Cythe MAy4r
9caarct of A4darmen a# itg.tlrst c~egutet
t~y, 2U95, mead a~i'Atay 5, 2E1'15.
C:fTY ~~ RtCX3E.D
~Y.
A'f"I'E8fi
~Y'
yB. 2t~i5
~:
~y 14, x(315

38.

The published notice failed to comply with Section 600.15.A because it did not

contain the proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment and was not published in all capital letters.
Moreover, the published notice failed to comply with Miss. Code Ann. 17-1-15 because it
contained neither the full text of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment nor an explanatory statement
summarizing the substance of the amendment whereby interested citizens were informed of the
proposed action.

Further, the notice failed to comport with Mississippi constitutional

requirements regarding notice and an opportunity to be heard.

39.

On top of the deficient notice published in the newspaper, Mattiace, Costco, and

the City failed to post signs as required by the 2014 Zoning Ordinance. Whenever a rezoning
application or zoning ordinance amendment is considered by the City,"signs bearing notices of a
public hearing shall be erected on the property involved. These signs shall be erected not less
than fifteen days prior to the date of the public hearing. When more than one parcel of land is
involved in the proposed zoning action or the proposed use, enough signs shall be posted to
adequately identify the area affected. The notice to be posted on the property involved shall
consist of a sign with letters legible from the nearest street, using at least one (1) sign for every
four hundred (400) feet of frontage on a publicly dedicated street upon which the property

oaao~a~a

17

abuts." (Ex. B, at 600.15.B). Mattiace, Costco, and the City failed to comply with these
requirements.
COUNT I: VIOLATIONS OF STATE LAW
40.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs.
41.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Miss. Code Ann. 17-1-9 because it

does not follow Ridgeland's Comprehensive Plan.

42.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Miss. Code Ann. 17-1-15 and 17-

1-17 because Ridgeland failed to provide the required notices.

43.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Mississippi law because it was

enacted in the absence of a mistake in the original zoning, a change in the character of the
neighborhood, or public need.
44.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Mississippi law because it is an

invalid spot zoning.

A zoning ordinance change adopted without proper notice or without complying

45.

with statutory procedures is void. Likewise, a zoning ordinance change inconsistent with state
law is void.
46.

Ridgeland's adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment in violation of its own

Zoning Ordinance and state law was arbitrary, capricious, illegal, unsupported by substantial
evidence, and does not advance a legitimate governmental interest.
47.

Due to the above and foregoing violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory

judgment that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is invalid, unconstitutional, unlawful, void, and
unenforceable.

oaao~z~a

18

COUNT II: VIOLATIONS OF RIDGELAND'S OWN ZONING ORDINANCE

48.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs.
49.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Section 600.10.B of Ridgeland's

Zoning Ordinance because Ridgeland failed to consider, much less satisfy, the standards
required. Specifically, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment applies only to a small tract of land,
was enacted to benefit an individual developer and not the general public, violates Ridgeland's
Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Plan, and is incompatible with surrounding land uses.
Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment was not necessary to correct a mistake in the
original zoning, nor was it necessary due to a change in the character of the neighborhood or
public need. There was no convincing demonstration that the new uses to be allowed in the
district were appropriate to the area, that the character of the neighborhood would not be
materially and adversely affected by the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, or that the property
could not be used in accordance with the existing zoning.
50.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Section 600.10.0 of Ridgeland's

Zoning Ordinance because there was no mistake in the original zoning, no showing of change in
the character of the neighborhood, and no showing of public need.
51.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Section 600.10.) of Ridgeland's

Zoning Ordinance because it fails to contain required findings citing evidence demonstrating
compliance with Section 600.10.C.
52.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Section 600.10.D of Ridgeland's

Zoning Ordinance because it is inconsistent with Ridgeland's Comprehensive Plan.

oaao~a~a

19

53.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Section 600.10.F of Ridgeland's

Zoning Ordinance because Mattiace, Costco, and Ridgeland failed to notify all property owners
within 160 feet and all neighborhood organizations within 1,000 feet of the rezoned tract at least
15 days prior to June 2, 2015.
54.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Section 600.15.A of Ridgeland's

Zoning Ordinance because Ridgeland failed to provide the required notice.

55.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment violates Section 600.15.B of Ridgeland's

Zoning Ordinance because Mattiace, Costco, and Ridgeland failed to post the required signs.
56.

A municipality must abide by its own ordinances.

57.

A zoning ordinance change adopted without proper notice or without complying

with statutory procedures is void. Likewise, a zoning ordinance change inconsistent with state
law is void.
58.

Ridgeland's adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment in violation of its own

honing Ordinance and ,tate law was arbitrary, capricious, illegal, unsupported by substantial
evidence, and does not advance a legitimate governmental interest.
59.

Due to the above and foregoing violations, Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory

judgment that the Zoning Ordinance Amendment is invalid, unconstitutional, unlawful, void, and
unenforceable.
COUNT III: DUE PROCESS
60.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs.
61.

Plaintiffs have a protected property interest that has been and will continue to be

violated through the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.

ozao~a~a

20

62.

The Zoning Ordinance Amendment, and the Costco Development, will

substantially and negatively impact residential property values, crime, the historic and peaceful
nature of the area, quality of life, noise, litter, and the ability of children to ride their bikes to and
from their neighborhoods.

Additionally, the Zoning Ordinance Amendment has already

negatively impacted residential property values.

63.

Plaintiffs were not provided adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard prior

to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment.

64.

Further, Ridgeland's adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Amendment in violation

of its own Zoning Ordinance and state law was arbitrary, capricious, illegal, unsupported by
substantial evidence, and does not advance a legitimate governmental interest
65.

As a result, the City of Ridgeland has violated Plaintiffs' rights to due process

under Mississippi law and the constitution.

COUNT IV: UNLAWFUL DIVERSION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
66.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the preceding

paragraphs.
67.

The May 6, 2014 resolution adopted by the City of Ridgeland allowing the sales

tax dollars of Renaissance Phase II to be diverted to the Sales Tax Incentive Grant Program does
not and cannot apply to any application for state funding related to Renaissance Phase III.
68.

Any attempted application of the May 6, 2014 resolution to the Renaissance

Phase III site should be declared invalid, unlawful, illegal, void, and unconstitutional.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the
Court enter a judgment declaring the June 2, 2014 Zoning Ordinance Amendment to be invalid,
unconstitutional, unlawful, void, and unenforceable. Plaintiffs additionally request that the Court

oaao~a~a

21

declare the City's May 6, 2014 resolution for the application by the Renaissance at Colony Park,
LLC for Tourism Act benefits to be inapplicable to the proposed Phase III site/Costco
Development and that any attempted application by the City of the May 6, 2014 resolution to the
Phase III site/Costco Development would be unlawful, void, illegal, and unconstitutional.
Plaintiffs requests such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
This the 25th day of November, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
GERALD EMMETT BEARD,
CHARLES JULES MICHEL,
HAROLD JOSEPH BYRD,
NILS KEREM MUNGAN,
GEORGE THATCHER SHEPARD,JR.,
MATTHEW DENSON DeSHAZO,
WILLIAM M. ADEN
THOMAS DICE,III, and

O~zE of
OF COUNSEL:
Benje Bailey(MSB No. 100053)
Sheldon G. Alston(MSB No. 9784)
William D. Drinkwater(MSB No. 103913)
BRUNINI, GRANTHAM,GROWER & HEWES,PLLC
Post Office Drawer 119
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
The Pinnacle Building, Suite 100
190 East Capitol Street
Jackson, Mississippi 39201
Telephone: (601)948-3101
Telecopier: (601)960-6902
bbailey(cr~,brun_ini.com
salston~~brunini,com
wdrinlcwater(~~brunini.co m

oaao~2~a

22