Jackson Free Press

The Mississippi Supreme Court refused to revisit its August decision regarding a four-star bed and breakfast in Jackson. The court had earlier decided that the city of Jackson had illegally spot-zoned the property for the Fairview Inn, on Fairview Street in Belhaven, allowing the placement of a business in a residentially zoned area in the affluent north section. The court decided not to reconsider that decision with a 6-to-3 vote.

The Jackson City Council adopted two amendments to the city's zoning ordinance in 2004, allowing the Fairview Inn and an adjoining restaurant to operate within the residential neighborhood. Neighbors Daniel and Katherine Baker, along with Mark and Anita Modak-Truran, opposed the placement and filed a complaint against the city's decision in the Hinds County Circuit Court, which upheld the city's decision. Plaintiffs then appealed that decision to the State Supreme Court, which reversed the decision of Circuit Court Judge Bobby DeLaughter.

"Although the City proceeded under the auspices of a 'text amendment,' the changes to the zoning ordinance effectively rezoned residential property for the sole favor and benefit of the Fairview Inn. Such action constitutes impermissible spot zoning. Therefore, we reverse the circuit court's judgment affirming the amendments and render judgment in favor of the appellants," the court concluded.

Baker argued in his court filings that the adjoining restaurant "was not compatible with the residential character of the neighborhood, that it would be damaging to the surrounding property-owners, and that it would create a hazard to the children living in the area," among other complaints.

Fairview co-owner Tamar Sharp, who with her husband, Peter, own Sharp Hospitality, LLC, bought the property in 2006. Both had to contend with the ongoing lawsuit filed by neighbors in Hinds County Circuit Court in 2004.

"At this point, it's just business as usual," Sharp told the Jackson Free Press. "We're trying other avenues to keep the restaurant open. I can't really say much on this because of all the legal issues, but we're talking with the neighbors and the city."

The Modak-Truans did not immediately return calls.

Previous Commentsshow

While I realize that there is another valid viewpoint here, it still seems most unfortunate that one of Jackson's best restaurants is being effectively closed. If this were an Ihop or a Five Guys Burgers I could understand the objection more sympathetically. Such establishments need to be encouraged in Jackson. The zonimg issue os indeed thorny, and I wioll grant that an exception was probably not a great idea to begin with. At the present, it seems that Jackson- and Miossissippi by extension, may lose one of its better establishments. My apartment is directly above the back of a restaurant, so I understand many of the objections of the owners nearby. Given that this establishment has attempted to raise the bar of dining in Jackson, I would have hoped that a resonable compromise could have been reached.

tombarnes

Oct 17 2009

I'm not so sure an exception should be made simply because they serve good food.

Ironghost

Oct 17 2009

How would you feel if this were your business? It seems unfair to enter the picture later and tell the business owners that they cannot operate a restaurant there. I sympathize with the residents, but only to a certain point. I'd dearly love to see the foul "restaurant" underneath my windows vanish in a puff of smoke. I don't have that choice. Just because the residents in the area are powerful shouldn't allow them to destroy a business which benefits the city.

tombarnes

Oct 17 2009

I might not have pushed to put a restaurant there in the first place, to be honest. They should blame the city, honestly. I'm wondering if the city knew their zoning effort would be booted.

Ironghost

Oct 17 2009

Tom, It seems the neighbors have been opposing the zoning since the city made the exception for Fairview in 2004. It's taken this long for the case to work its way through the system. My understanding is that the current owners also knew about the litigation when they bought the place. Bottom line is that spot zoning is not legal in Mississippi. I sympathize with the owners and I hate to see the city lose a business for any reason, but the court's decision didn't exactly come out of left field. I hope the Sharp's find a way out of the mess.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 19 2009

Good point, Ronni M. I, too, hope that the Sharps can find a way to continue their dream. Legal maneuvers are sooooo costly and it takes some pretty deep pockets to stay in the game. I hope that they don't give up: That there can be some creative ways to satisfy all parties involved.

justjess

Oct 19 2009

of course the fact that the couple that brought the suit originally are well attention seekers (I really wanted to use another term) has nothingto do with this. I'm sure there's much more traffic there for big wedding receptions, but they couldn't bitch about that...

bill_jackson

Oct 19 2009

Reximus, I'm trying to understand what you're saying. If you're accusing the people who brought the suit of some "attention-seeking" agenda, what's the basis for your accusation? Also, what do wedding receptions have to do with anything? If someone has a reception in their home, it's a once in a lifetime event—and private. That's very different from a restaurant that's open seven days a week year round.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 19 2009

Rex, I've warned you and others are other Fairview threads about personal attacks on either party in this zoning dispute. Please honor the user agreement, or we'll have to put your comments in moderation going forward. Thank you.

DonnaLadd

Oct 19 2009

It's not the owners of Fairview hacing their own reception. For years and years the Fairview has been a commercially operated reception hall. And now all of a sudden the lighter traffic generated by their restaurant is a problem? Please.

bill_jackson

Oct 19 2009

Reximus, if you actually *read* the story and the comments, you'll see there's no "all of a sudden" about this. Residents challenged the spot zoning starting in 2004, when the city changed it.

Ronni_Mott

Oct 19 2009

Ronni, you don't get the point I was trying to make. If 400 people can attend a wedding reception (or corporate event or private party, whatever) and the neighbors are ok with that, then why are their panties in a wad over much smaller numbers of people eating at the restaurant? Doesn't make much sense, does it?

bill_jackson

Oct 20 2009