Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Oak Grove Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. City of Hattiesburg
Citations: 588 So. 2d 814; 1991 Miss. LEXIS 353Docket: No. 89-CA-0135
Court: Mississippi Supreme Court; May 29, 1991; Mississippi; State Supreme Court
Two appeals have been filed regarding the decree of the Forrest County Chancery Court concerning the City of Hattiesburg's ordinance to expand its municipal boundaries. The City appeals the denial of its annexation of certain lands in Lamar County, while local citizen associations contest the approval of annexing other lands. The court affirms the chancellor's decisions. On April 28, 1987, Hattiesburg adopted Ordinance No. 2261 to expand its boundaries from approximately 23 to 112 square miles, by annexing about 86 square miles across Forrest and Lamar Counties. The city filed petitions for confirmation of this annexation, which were consolidated for a hearing in the Forrest County Chancery Court. The proposed area included several communities, and objections were raised by various local entities and residents. On August 14, 1987, Hattiesburg and some objectors jointly requested the removal of specific communities from the annexation proposal, leading to the chancellor permitting the deletion of about 28 square miles from the plan on November 5. A full hearing began on June 6, 1988, to evaluate the annexation's reasonableness, with objections primarily from the Oak Grove Concerned Citizens Association and the Lamar County Board of Supervisors. The hearing lasted five days, with extensive witness testimony and a chancellor site visit. On September 26, 1988, the chancellor approved annexation of 22 square miles in Forrest County but denied the request for 23 square miles in Lamar County, citing the city's failure to demonstrate the reasonableness of the latter annexation. He noted the approved area in Forrest County was sufficient for Hattiesburg's growth needs. The memorandum opinion was not final, as the chancellor issued an addendum on October 6 to allow for post-trial motions from all parties. Multiple parties submitted motions for reconsideration following a memorandum opinion regarding the annexation of property in Lamar County adjacent to Hattiesburg's western boundary. On October 6, 1988, two groups—the Hood Parties and the Wesley Health Parties—sought court approval for annexing their respective commercial properties. Subsequently, on October 21, the York Parties requested the inclusion of approximately 183 acres of land for a proposed regional mall, along with several other parties (collectively referred to as the "Interstate 59 Parties") who owned property in Sections 24 and 25 of Lamar County. Additionally, some Forrest County residents requested the exclusion of certain lands from the annexation, although these motions were not contested on appeal. Hattiesburg supported all Lamar County motions for reconsideration, while Oak Grove and the Lamar County Board of Supervisors moved to strike these motions, arguing that the filers lacked standing as they were not parties to the original cause or proper intervenors. On December 2, the court classified all motions and responses filed between September 26 and November 22 as post-judgment. On January 23, 1989, the chancellor reaffirmed the annexation of approximately 22 square miles in Forrest County and approved additional annexation of Lamar County lands, correcting a prior drafting error. The annexation included the properties of the Wesley Health Parties (54 acres), Hood Parties (31 acres), and York Parties (183 acres), as well as lands belonging to Immanuel Baptist Church and the Lamar County Northeast Volunteer Fire Department, along with surrounding public ways. The court concluded that the area's location, topography, and existing developments indicated its future use would be primarily commercial. Commercial development in the Oak Grove area will not adversely affect existing residential neighborhoods. The expansion of the adjacent medical community is expected to provide substantial benefits to Lamar County and potentially nearby areas. On February 3, 1989, a final judgment was issued in the annexation case, leading to appeals from Oak Grove, the Shadow Wood/Richburg Concerned Citizens Association, and Hattiesburg. A subsequent order on February 21 partially dismissed Oak Grove’s appeal, allowing the immediate annexation of lands owned by the Wesley Health Parties, York Parties, and Smith Petroleum, Inc. Hattiesburg's appeal challenges the chancellor’s denial of its request to annex approximately 23 square miles, primarily farmland and the Oak Grove Community, which had a population of about 6,315 in 1987. The court has established factors to assess the reasonableness of annexation, which include the city's need for expansion, the area's alignment with the city's growth path, potential health hazards from waste disposal, the city's financial capacity for improvements, the necessity for zoning, the demand for municipal services, the presence of natural barriers, the city's service history, and landowner interests. These factors serve as guidelines for the chancellor, who must evaluate them collectively to determine the overall reasonableness of the annexation. The court's review of the chancellor's findings is limited; it will only reverse decisions deemed manifestly wrong and unsupported by credible evidence. The court will defer to the chancellor's findings in cases of conflicting credible evidence. The record indicates that Chancellor Dale acted within his discretion by approving only part of Hattiesburg's annexation proposal. The chancellor's decision to permit the annexation of 22 square miles in Forrest County while denying additional annexation in Lamar County was supported by substantial evidence and not deemed manifestly wrong. The chancellor found that the annexed area would sufficiently accommodate Hattiesburg's growth needs for the foreseeable future. Hattiesburg claims it requires an additional 23 square miles in Lamar County to address its expansion needs, citing testimony from city planner Corrine Fox, who indicated that only 2.47% of Hattiesburg's territory is vacant and free from development constraints. She warned that without more developable land, Hattiesburg would face a shortage in three to four years, pushing commercial development outside the city limits, particularly into Lamar County, which is growing faster than Hattiesburg. Joseph Lusteck, a real estate consultant, testified that Hattiesburg's population was estimated at 44,757 in May 1988, projecting growth to 46,700 by 1993 and 49,000 by the year 2000. However, he acknowledged that his earlier research indicated a population decline from 1980 to 1986. In contrast, Oak Grove and the Lamar County Board of Supervisors argued that Hattiesburg was not experiencing growth and had no need for expansion. Vernon Kelley, a certified planner, criticized Lusteck's estimates as exaggerated, asserting that Hattiesburg had not seen real growth since 1960, and much of its population increase was due to annexation rather than organic growth. Kelley provided data showing a decrease in population density from 1980 to 1987, suggesting that the city was not growing. He also challenged the methodology used by Continental Consultants and Lusteck regarding land constraints for development. Kelley criticized the city’s land development constraints, noting that about 50% of the city’s land already has soil constraints and that previous development occurred despite these issues. He argued that limiting development to land with less than a 10% slope would preclude any new homes in North Mississippi. George Stepko, a planner for Tatum Development Corporation, testified that Hattiesburg should expand into Forrest County instead of Lamar County. Tatum Development encompasses 4,400 acres south of Hattiesburg, planned for a mixed-use community including various housing types, commercial spaces, and recreational facilities, anticipating high growth due to access to major highways and proximity to industrial areas. The chancellor supported the need for Hattiesburg's expansion based on credible evidence, highlighting slow population growth, with only a 1,053 increase from 1980 to 1990, affected by prior annexations. The analysis suggested that Hattiesburg’s growth path is directed south into undeveloped Forrest County land, which is more accessible than the proposed Lamar County annexation area. The chancellor noted that while the Lamar County area was once a growth path, it is now highly developed, contradicting Hattiesburg’s claims. Experts indicated that Hattiesburg’s growth has historically been strongest in areas west, north, and south of Highway 98, while development in the southern areas is expected to increase rapidly. Conversely, witnesses for Oak Grove and the Lamar County Board contended that the Lamar County area is no longer a viable growth area for Hattiesburg, with Kelley asserting that the western boundary area had lost its growth potential. The testimony revealed that Lamar County, developed since the 1960s, is currently experiencing minimal growth, primarily due to congestion at key access points: Highway 98, Richburg Road, and Fourth Street. In contrast, the area south of Hattiesburg in Forrest County is poised for development, facilitated by a new thoroughfare connecting Richburg Road to Highways 11 and 49. The chancellor determined that Hattiesburg's proposed annexation area in Lamar County is within the city's potential growth path, despite the city's capability to expand in any direction without significant barriers. The decision favored the southern area in Forrest County for future growth, supported by evidence of the Tatum Development and limited access issues in Lamar County. Regarding health hazards, the chancellor found no convincing evidence of significant risks in the Lamar County annexation area, despite Hattiesburg's claims. Bryan Baker from Continental Consultants reported observations of ditches and lagoons, with only one site showing a slightly elevated fecal coliform count. The problematic area was a lake in Forrest County, with a count just above the safety threshold. Baker also noted overflowing dumpsters in a mobile home park in Lamar County. However, evidence presented by Oak Grove and Lamar County suggested no significant health hazards in the proposed annexation area. Charles Henderson, a sanitarian for the counties, confirmed the absence of health hazards in Lamar County and indicated that the soil there was adequate for septic systems, contrasting with some areas in Forrest County where soil conditions posed challenges. Henderson reported no significant sewer issues in Lamar County, and the chancellor's opinion, supported by substantial evidence, was affirmed. Hattiesburg failed to demonstrate potential health hazards and was recognized as financially capable of making improvements in the proposed annexation area. The court noted that much of the area was already developed, while undeveloped land faced physical constraints. Hattiesburg argued that the area lacked necessary urban planning and zoning, with its director of planning testifying that neither Lamar nor Forrest Counties had comprehensive plans or zoning ordinances. While Hattiesburg claimed Lamar County's subdivision regulations were inadequate, Lamar County officials asserted that their planning was sufficient, with a county planning commission actively reviewing growth patterns and subdivision plats. Lamar County's president testified about the commission's close collaboration with the board of supervisors to ensure orderly development, and there was a full-time planner role being filled following a resignation. Testimony indicated that Lamar County is a rural area unlikely to see significant development soon, with farmers planning to continue farming. Both Kelley and Morris supported the adequacy of the county’s subdivision regulations. The chancellor found no manifest error regarding the need for zoning or planning in the area. Hattiesburg claimed a need for municipal services, but testimonies from residents indicated satisfaction with current services, deemed adequate except for fire protection. Although the area has organized volunteer fire departments, their response capability to major fires was questioned, and the area holds a Class 10 fire rating compared to Hattiesburg's Class 5. The chancellor's findings were affirmed, noting the area is patrolled by a sheriff and deputies. Testimony from Hattiesburg's witnesses indicated that the county sheriff's department was insufficient for urban policing needs, particularly in the proposed annexation area, which they characterized as urban and in need of frequent patrols. Conversely, many Lamar County residents expressed satisfaction with the sheriff's department's services, claiming the area had a low crime rate and did not require more police presence. The chancellor concluded that there was no current necessity for additional police patrols, citing a lack of evidence to support claims of inadequate protection. Regarding garbage collection, Lamar County provides once-a-week service, whereas Hattiesburg offers more frequent pickups. However, residents in the proposed annexation area did not express a desire for increased service, and no evidence indicated inadequacies in current garbage collection. The chancellor found that the existing roads were well-maintained, supported by witness testimony, although Hattiesburg raised concerns about drainage issues and overgrown ditches, which objectors acknowledged but were addressing. The proposed annexation area is served by several local rural water associations, and only four out of 23 square miles lack certification from the Mississippi Public Service Commission, with evidence indicating that the water supply is adequate. Hattiesburg would need to acquire or negotiate with these associations to enhance water services, but had not made arrangements as of the trial date. Lamar County provides sewage services through a cooperative program with state and federal agencies, and the current sewage system was deemed adequate, with no health risks identified. The chancellor found credible evidence supporting the adequacy of these systems. The chancellor recognized Interstate 59 and the county line as natural barriers but highlighted that both parties agreed there are no true natural barriers hindering annexation. Hattiesburg contested this view, asserting that such geographical features should not impede annexation efforts and that the interstate would not obstruct service provision. Lamar County residents commonly commute to Hattiesburg, crossing Interstate 59 and the county line without concern. However, Oak Grove and Lamar County argue that these boundaries function as barriers, contending that Hattiesburg has only annexed land west of the interstate with developer invitation and local consent. They assert that Interstate 59 complicates Hattiesburg’s ability to provide services to the proposed annexation area, which is accessible only via limited routes. The chancellor found that the presence of these barriers did not preclude annexation if other compelling evidence supported it. He noted that many residents preferred to maintain their quasi-rural lifestyle, with significant farming activity and a lack of desire for urban integration. The chancellor determined that annexation would adversely affect landowners, especially farmers, and that the residents were satisfied with their current services, aside from fire protection. The ruling emphasized fairness and equity, indicating a strong preference among residents against annexation. Hattiesburg argued that the court prioritized the desires of Lamar County residents over the city’s expansion needs, but the chancellor was found to have adequately weighed both sides. The residents expressed valid concerns regarding community identity and potential tax increases post-annexation. Ultimately, the court concluded that the chancellor's decision was reasonable and well-founded, affirming the ruling against Hattiesburg's annexation request. The chancellor meticulously reviewed evidence and inspected the annexation areas desired by Hattiesburg, demonstrating a thorough understanding of the facts. The court must defer to the chancellor's findings, given their first-hand nature and the chancellor's authority as the fact finder. Hattiesburg's claims of erroneous legal standards applied by the chancellor have been found to lack merit. Specifically, the chancellor did not err in requiring proof that the Lamar County area was in a primary path of growth, nor in distinguishing between existing and potential health hazards. The chancellor's analysis included considerations of major thoroughfares, future development plans, and current area development, leading to a reasoned conclusion about the growth paths. Hattiesburg's assertion that the chancellor demanded a compelling need for municipal services also lacks merit; the chancellor adequately assessed existing services and identified deficiencies, particularly in fire protection. Furthermore, the chancellor's evaluation of Hattiesburg’s financial capability to provide services was deemed sufficient, noting the city's substantial bonding ability and adequate tax base. The chancellor's comprehensive written opinions and logical reasoning support the decision, which this court must affirm as neither manifestly wrong nor unsupported by credible evidence. Oak Grove and Shadow Wood are appealing a court decision that allowed the annexation of commercial property in Lamar County, owned by James Richard West and others, located south of Highway 98 and adjacent to existing city boundaries. The Shadow Wood area consists of about thirty residences and some commercial developments. The appellants argue that the chancellor improperly considered motions for reconsideration from property owners who did not participate in the trial, claiming these individuals lacked standing. They also assert that the chancellor erred in reconsidering his prior opinion. The court found that the movants had standing, citing Sperry Rand Corp. v. City of Jackson, and determined that the chancellor acted within his discretion to hear motions for reconsideration, as no final judgment had been made. Furthermore, the chancellor's authority to modify or vacate orders before a final judgment is firmly established in equity. The court upheld that the chancellor was fair in allowing all interested parties to be heard before issuing a final decree. Shadow Wood's claims of insufficient evidence supporting the annexation and its alleged unreasonableness were also dismissed; substantial evidence existed to justify the decision. The chancellor conducted a thorough examination, including a full hearing and personal inspections of the relevant areas. The court affirmed the chancellor's decision, noting it was not manifestly wrong and reflected careful deliberation. The appeal was affirmed in all respects, with some justices concurring in part and dissenting in part. The court referenced twelve factors to be considered in annexation cases, emphasizing the importance of assessing the impact on minority voting strength and ensuring equitable tax contributions from those near municipal limits.