,. .. -

:- "

.. ..,. , .. • . · .. ,...... ......... -.. ......_..~,.. "' " .... • I ... ._. f .,. .. _ 1111 Ill "'". .... .. .

... . .... ~·. -,.,. _.,, .......... • Ill •-:, .. •

o;<t'

APPLICATION FOR ZONING MAP AMENDMENT

CITY OF OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI

CASE NO.::? Y:f

Applicant 1 s Name Eugenia Bramlett McLaurin Address: 208 McLaurin Drive, Oxford, MS Telephone 234-2536 Interest in Property Owner ".'" Developer Application for a change in the zoning classificati?n of property located on the

East side of Carol Ln. & McLaurin(street) between (street) -------(street).·· Dr· ---------------

The legal description of the property is (include all block, lot and subdivision

numbers) ___ S_e~e~a~t~t~a~c~h~e~d;.._;;;m~a.p~.---------------------------

The present zoning of the above property is RA ; the proposed zoning is RB •

What changed or ctimig'ing conditions make the passage of this amendment necessary?

The demographics of this area have made the condominium form-of ownership desirable and practical. For condominium development. a proposed area must be zoned RB. Condominiums would enhance both the vitality of the area as well as the property values. For additional reasons, see attached Exhibit "B". What other circumstanees justify the proposed amendment? -------------------5 e e attached Exhibit 11 Bn.

What error(s) in the Zoning Map would be corrected by the proposed amendment? The property contained in the highlighted area of the map attached as Exhibit "A" would RA to RB.

FOR CITY USE ONLY Date Filed with Zoning Administrator ~-27-rJ<Y Fee Paid$ S"'dt)~ Date of Public Hearing before Planning Comission __ cr;;....-..-;;.8'_-_.W~-----=-----­Reco1T111endation of Planning and Zoning Corrrnission ~e",.."" ,. J. J,..,.: ~ I t11=-

"h t'c,.,,.; ~-i - """ c h"'.ps.c I..... ~£,,t,,.r;,,.._ "i=- n..-J J,/ L,.<..tl,,,c{ .rAt.,.11 <y -rJ-._ "#/.·~,.,,,.,.. {Sc=/ vrrc..J

Action by Mayor and Board of Aldennen 4'JaLfcrtlbJ..... rlr~: .. !. .

Ordinance Number and Date ~ Signature of Zoning Administra~~ Date _______ _

• • This property was originally planned in four sections to be

known as Bramlett Gardens Subdivision - Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV. After subdivision plans were drawn up, the placement of the high school in the area, and the fact that the highway utilized an extensive amount of the land for Highway 7 Bypass - destroyed the original planned development of Bramlett Gardens Subdivision.

Only Part I and an.amended section of Part II, namely Part II-A of the original plan ever came into being. The covenants that apply to Part I and Part II-A don't apply to any of the 1 and left and the land that I desire rezoned is a portion of "left ovei:" land - taxed as undeveloped land.

It is no longer feasible to develop the remaining areas in the same way as was originally planned 25 years ago. Condominiums are much better suited for this area today. Changing population demographics indicate the increased number of financially stable mat~re couples who desire quality housing without the responsibility of maintenance. This is one of the many positive features of condominium developments.

The rezoning will allow for maximum utilization of idle land within the city limits.

The rezoning would allow for the development of two units per building which I anticipate developing in a price range from $125,000 to $150,000 per unit.

The changing conditions which necessitate this change in zoning are that the housing needs and market inputs of the community warrant and require condominium development.

,

EXHIBIT "B"

.. ..

AVENT PARK

•rll'

or

.!.QQ. 1.1.ae•

•• ur •>r

11 19

t ~ ~ k ~ £.

~IUT loll'TIST• Cl«Jll:CK

133

... ·~· z I

.A.. ~

Ul<t ... ... ....

lL 9 :

7 • •r

..ll SOC"

Ol<TO'I;) ""-"<ICl,olL SUMUt SCM00t. l\ISTltlCJ

/

:lO

~

•

llW

~

E !..Q! tr

ur

" :ll

1 i ~

••r

~ ,, 41

.. .. 2Z

103 ,,r.;:rc-

110 1 IOI

,:;;;;: -

!

u

.. :

•

... '" OtST.

BO .~

I -

I: - . , ..

I

• ' . ·~--.._ .. •

• '4f

.' c:i_ '!ft W I>- e_ f{ L ~ f.. //II f I b"rJ. .S

.! c:t a._ o v f ,:rA,_; S / ~S' .AJJ._./ fl e. f v /.s ,L .. , .. ~

./r>/I ff~ 3~z:,t/Nf, UN .f1~ f-~1s _, 1! o hN '91 Jl. -.n-rr riJr- r.iJ:,,;,· JI,;"' t(' .. ~F-'.1 f B1t~ ~JV ;to C11NtP.e.lf.!lfl~H ti Ji tl /r-o~ fl - Vf e_ Off r?o M >tL/?../ c 1rt ! j )- H ~ s- -~i s- · f! f 1; ." ..0 -r / M "'- jp fD a ,_ . _ q ¢ lJ M ~ , e 1 fr r! 2 "~ N 1"'1 - so ca ... , d f A·o ~ v .r4 ~ f }\ Al- W .t-. ? .t.. >t"" ,'- , - u :.

ll 11~ l...s v ~ f-1 L w_e_ 1po/c JN tt; ... ,· ,, l .. d

;; a_iz ~<J?n1:tc,L~ _ -Yo;Pa.-r2 1..Y/~..n,1/){ ! : t;? /Yi D"'r:H .f )\ .S 1...v- I- W' / 2. l (i A.- t;-- ..t__t~ ~e:... -jl 2 . . I fl .-19 IV... --~ '.: I ' •• .:-- t.)i..~.,i;{.,t,.

!1 ~

;1 C'11s~ H ~# 'l~ .B )n fiS .Me 7PllP/A( l ; ., l'f 2 I c. ..ft -.,l /&JI';< I" (? ,,,L "S " N .IL ;f ff (J l'1

'.~ f/~A 1D (fr[)

:: ~ ~ J'vi 11 fo N . ./Jiil I? I( ~.S ? Iv"'- __ ), !'(, ;; Q)>/i II M 2 t!.. fr )/,11 lltJ ,t,N..s J.(1 -I- )1 c_ 1 A.If lN_ 1! {[)fl I J;.~~ 0 /?. C IJ f!o 2. "rf ~ Z (BP 7 :;..! o" r>'-'I... ~ 61."-C?Q..e-Nr T6.t-s-~ 1.iw "" IJ M,~ DIV l'i/ ,_flS · rA. ~~· '-·k't v ~J ·~:;:iA<t·~~ ·, ··-:·I ~fl.ts C:::... /f 1--A. /JfYD Cl) ffM //~It.~ !ifu .. ~,..{ °cJf(PoS'.t-)( )a· f!i,~ /r1!3t:J?V/lt· : , O/ .f /l. ,:~ a.ri- .1- fb

•• )11 L.foN GJ..11/lf/ ~ ... . ..

,, ~ ,, ,- _______ __:_ _________ ...,... .................. ---.__

~ - .,i

OBJECTION TO REZONING APPLICATION OF EUGENIA BRAMLETT McLAURIN

This ~bjection to the Application for Rezoning filed by

Eugenia Bramlett McLaurin on June 27, 1988, is made for and on

behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Earl Truett, residents of Poplar Heights in

Bramlett Gardens Subdiviaion, Oxford, Mississippi.

I.

FACTS

Documents filed with the Oxford Planning Commission show that

on June 27, 1988, Eugenia Bramlett McLaurin, a resident of 208

McLaurin Drive in Bramlett Gardens Subdivision, made application

for rezoning of approximately nine (9) acres of undeveloped land

in Bramlett Gardens Subdivision' from RA (single family dwellings)

'to RB (dual family dwellings). In support of her Application for

Rezoning, Mrs. McLaurin notes that the Oxford High School and the

Highway 7 Bypass have been constructed since the original

subdivision plans were adopted. Mrs. McLaurin further alleges in

tier Application that demographic changes have rendered condominium

development preferable to the development of single family

dwellings.

Although the proposed rezoning would essentially double the

potential population density of the nine (9) acre tract in

1 question, no comprehensive plan or proposal accompanies the

Application addressing access to the area, the effect of doubling

the potential vehicular traf fie into and out of that area, the

location or construct ion of access roads, or the increased load

that would automatically be placed upon watershed management,

water, sewage or other public utility facilities for the area.

Although Mrs. McLaurin "anticipates" developing condominiums

' (duplexes) in the price range of One Hundred Twenty-Five Thousand

dollars ($125,000.00) to One Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars

($150,000.00) per unit, the proposed rezoning would only double

the prospective population density of the area; rezoning would not

in and of itself provide any protection to surrounding property

.owners as regards the size, cost or quality of construction.

1

At the Oxford Planning Commission's interim session on July

11, 1988, the Chairman of the Commission stated that the

, Application before the Commission dealt with rezoning and had

nothing to do with the planning or installation of water or sewage

facilities, the paving or opening of streets, or other matters

involving utilities or access to the area.

I I.

OBJECTION

Objection is hereby made to the Application of Eugenia

Bramlett McLaurin for rezoning from RA to RB. Since the

development of Bramlett Gardens Subdivision more than thirty (30)

years ago, the character of the neighborhood has not changed to

any substantial degree. Although there is every indication that

'rezoning would be financially beneficial to Mrs. McLaurin, there

is no evidence that a public need exists for rezoning this

pcoperty or that the property is no longer suitable for single

family dwellings. The only changes to the neighborhood over the

last thirty (30) years have been the construction of Oxford High

School along the neighborhood's southern boundary and the

construction of the Highway 7 Bypass along its eastern boundary.

Construction of Oxford High School served a very real public need,

and had little or no impact upon the neighborhood other than to

increase the value of property situated there in. Because the

Highway 7 Bypass is a controlled access highway not visible from

most of Bramlett Gardens, Subdivision, it too serves a very real

public need without having any significant impact whatsoever upon

the subdivision itself. Both the High School and the Bypass were

installed not for personal financial gain but to fulfill public

needs, and neither impacted adversely upon the subdivision or

·altered its character in any way. No other change in the

subdivision has occurred; it remains to this day a quiet, well­

es tablished residential neighborhood cons ls ting of single family

dwellings purchased by families and individuals who at the time

they purchased their property relied upon the protection afforded

by protective covenants and zoning ordinances.

2

i

I I I.

DISCUSSION OF ISSUES

Probably the natural human tendency for any municipal

planning commission faced with an application for rezoning is to

focus on the benefit of rezoning to the applicant, compare that

benefit to the possible_harm that rezoning might do to the home­

owners comprising the objecting class, over laying both of those

considerations with a general assumption that if rezoning will

stimulate construction, and it is in the best interest of the

community. Although the inclination to use that rationale may be

almost overwhelming, the Mississippi Code, City Ordinances, and

case law promulgated by the Mississippi Supreme Court impose quite

a different standard. The purchase of a home is the largest

single investment that most families ever make. To a significant

degree that decision is based upon the nature of the neighborhood

and the protection afforded by restrictive covenants and zoning

ordinances. Recognizing - that fact the Mississippi Supreme Court

in Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Jackson v •. Wheatley • I

Place, I_~c., 468 So. 2d 81 (Miss. 1985), held that "in the absence ~

of agreement between all interested parties, an amendment to a

zoning ordinance is not meant to be easy. 11 Before property is

reclassified from one zone to another, the applicant must prove by

clear and convincing evidence that there was a mistake in the

original zoning or in the alternative that the character of the

neighborhood has changed to such an extent that the property is no

longer suitable for the. use contemplated by the original zoning

ordinance. In addition, the applicant must prove by clear and

convincing evidence that a public need exists for rezoning.

Thrash v. Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Jackson, 498 So.

2d 801 (Miss. 1986),·Broadacres, Inc. v. City of Hattiesburg, 489

So. 2d 501 (Miss. 1986), City of Jackson v. Aldridge, 487,So. 2d

1345 (Mi~s. 1986), Maybr and Commissioners of the City .of Jackson

v. Wheatley Place, Inc., 468 So. 2d 81 (Miss. 1985), Wright v .• ,

Mayor and Commissioners of the City of Jackson, 421 So. 2d 1219

(Miss. 1982), and City of Jackson v. Husbands, 233 So. 2d 817

' (Miss. 1970). The high court specifically noted in Westministe:c

3

...

- -·----· ·-·-·· ··-----.---------------------------------,

Presbyterian Church v. City of Jackson, 176 So. 2d 267 (Miss.

1965), that the fact that the proposed use might be more

·prof it able fo't the app'l::icant does not control the proper

de~ermination of a rezoning issue. The court noted in Wright and

Wheatlex, supra, that a presumption accompanies the original

zoning plan, a presumption that the original zoning ordinance was

well planned. Citizens who have purchased their homes in Bramlett .- .

Gardens Subdivision are entitled to the security and protection

afforded their property by that presumption.

Mrs. McLaurin does not contend that any mistake was made in

the original zoning ordinance. Instead she relies upon changes to

the n~ighborhood and the general proposition that demographic

changes make condominium development beneficial to the public in a

general sense. For more than thirty (30) years Bramlett Gardens

Subdivision has been ~niformly zoned RA, for single family

dwellings. In that time ~he only changes to the neighborhood have

been the construction of Oxford High School on the southern

boundary of the subdivision and Highway 7 Bypass on the eastern

· boundary, as hereinabove noted. Honoring the presumption that

zoning ordinances are well planned and adopted to be permanent,

the Mississippi Supreme Court in Wright v. Ma2or and Commisisoners

of the City of Jackson, 421 So. 2d 219 (Miss. 1982), found that

the construction of a fire station in the neighborhood, and the

construction of a portion of Interstate Highway 220 adjacent to

the neighborhood were not substantial enough changes to warrant

rezoning. That holding was despite the fact that rezoning would

have improved the tax base of the City of Jackson and would have

satisfied a public need. Applying to the applicant the very heavy

burden of persuasion required by law, the court in Wright found

that the public need could be served other than by rezoning the

property in question, and held that the substantial nature of the

neighborhood was unaffected by the construct ion of an interstate

highway and the construction of a fire station.

On its face Mrs. McLaur in' s Application does not allege a

substantial change in the character of the neighborhood in

question; it does not allege that the property is no longer

.suitable for single family dwellings, and it does not allege (much

4

less prove) that the public need for condominiums (if any) cannot

be satisfied except for spot rezoning of this particular property.

Spot rezoning has itself been condemned by our Supreme Court. See

Woodland Hills v. The City of Jackson, 443 So. 2d 1173 (Miss.

1983). In effect, rezoning should only occur in those exceptional

instances where in the entire character of the neighborhood has

substantially changed. In the case of Mayor and Co@missioners of

·~·the City of Jackson v. Wheatley, 468 So. 2d 81 (Miss. 1985), a

realty developer applied to rezone a small tract from single

family residential to townhouse residential zoning. The developer

contended that townhouses would clearly permit the highest and

best use of the five (5) acre tract in question without decreasing

the value of surrounding residential properties. Opponents of the

application simply contended that single family homeowners

historically have taken better care of their property than

townhouse owners and that construction of townhouses would

exacerbate existing heavy traffic in the area. Finally the

objectors asserted that there was no public need for this

' modification, in that other areas were available for townhouse

construction in the Jackson area. The Supreme Court in Wheatley

found that the applicant had not sustained its heavy burden of

establishing not only a substantial change in the neighborhood but

a public need for rezoning. The court went on to say that even if

the factual issues of substantial change and public need had been

"fairly debatable," that would not have satisfied the applicant 1 s

burden of proof.

Applicable case law permits rezoning only in those instances

where the proof is absolutely "clear and convincing" that the

nature of the neighbor~ood has undergone a substantial change and

that the public good (as opposed to the financial benefit of the

applicant) can only be served by rezoning. Rezoning as a result

of demographic changes which might render an applicant 1 s proposed

use of the property more lucrative is exactly what zoning

ordinances are designed to prevent and protect landowners from.

In the case of Westminister Presbyterian Church v. City of

Jackson~ 176 So. 2d 267 (Miss. 1965), the applicant Westminister

5

------~

Presbyterian Church demonstrated a need to relocate, selling its

existing site. Westminister Presbyterian Church further

demonstrated that the highest and best use of the property would

be as a filling station if the rezoning were approved (since the

value of the site was approximately $45,000.00 as a filling

station as opposed to .approximately $11,000.00 for residential

purposes). Arguably, a filling station fulfills a very real

· public need. The high co·urt affirmed the lower court's decision

upholding an order of the city council rejecting said application

despite proof of continued growth and expansion of commercial

activities adjacent to the church. In effect, the holding in

Westminister affirms the principal that the very purpose of zoning

ordinances is to resist change, for the benefit of those who have

purchased property in the neighborhood relying upon said zoning

ordinances and protective covenants.

At the meeting of the Planning Commission held July 11, 1988,

Mr. Truett and other objectors questioned the lack of

comprehensive planning which accompanies Mrs. McLaurin's

''Application. Rezoning from RA to RB would essential double the

population density of the proposed development, and there is no

comprehensive plan before the Commission dealing with traffic,

watershed or sanitation facilities. Existing streets which might

be extended to provide access to the nine (9) acre tract in

question include McLaurin Drive (at Carol Lane) and Poplar

Heights. Poplar Heights is a narrow, undeveloped private road

which could be extended into the area, but which could not

possibly bear the increased strain of vehicular traffic

commensurate with the proposed RB development of the tract. As

spokesman for the Planning Commission, Mr. Bill Sloan, Esquire,

took the position on July 11, 1988, that the Commission was there

to consider rezoning, and that the Commission was not there to

consider the widening or paving of streets, watershed or sewage.

It is respectively submitted that section 26-17 of the Oxford Code

specifically requires that the City Planning Commission consider

any proposed subdivision in light of its ultimate use and the

relation of that use to the public welfare and neighborhood

6

. . ~ ~ . '

development of the area in which it is located. The ordinance

further requires that all plats shall be examined in light of

existing plans, including the general land use plan, zoning

ordinances, major street· plans, major utility plans and other

public facility plans as well as the character of the local

community. Certainly the same policy considerations which attend

the Commission Is consideration of a proposed subdivision should

attend its consideration of proposed amendments to the zoning .

ordinances applicable to existing subdivisions. Additionally, §

17-1-9, Miss. Code Ann. (1972), as amended, holds in applicable

part that "a zoning regulation shall be made in accordance with a

comprehensive plan, and designed to lessen congestion in the

streets; ••• to prevent the overcrowding of l~nd; to avoid undue

concentration of populatipn; to facilitate the adequate provision

of transportation, water, sewage, and other public

requirements." In the case of Thrash v. Mayor and Commissioners . of .the City of Jackson: 498 So. 2d 801 (Miss. 1986), the zoning

committee not only considered and gave great weight to the traffic

ramifications of increased population density, but specifically

recommended that an adequate street be paved to facilitate the

anticipated traffic which would be generated by the proposed

development. Tt:aff ic, sewage and other public utility

considerations were not only considered but given great weight by

the planning commissions whose actions were reviewed in

Broadacres, Inc. v. City of Hatti'esburg, 489 So. 2d 501 (Miss.

1986), Woodland Hills Conservation Association v. City of Jackson,

443 So. 2d 1173 (Miss. 1983), Yates v. Mayor and Commissioners of

the City of Jackson, 244 So. 2d 724 (Miss. 1971), and Morris, et

al. v. City of Columbia, 186 So. 292 (Miss. 1939'). In C.ity of

Jackson, et al. v. Ridgeway, 258 So. 2d 439 (Miss. 1972), the

court found that the rezoning to permit dual family dwellings '

could result in traffic congestion and adversely affect the value

of existing property, so that the application was properly denied.

In so doing the high court noted that the very purpose of a zoning

ordinance is to protect existing homeowners from unforeseen

changes in the development of their neighborhood.

7

. '

IV.

CONCLUSION

This objection is premised on a lack of comprehensive

planning in connection with Mrs. McLaurin's Application, together

with a complete lack of proof that the neighborhood has changed in

any substantial or material way since the subdivision was approved

more than thirty (30) years ago. Although the proposed use of the

tract in question for condominiums might be the highest and best

use of the property under current demographic conditions in the

sense that it would be the most profitable use to Mrs. McLaurin,

that clearly is not the test; there is no evidence that the public

need for condominiums (if any) cannot be served elsewhere under an

existing zoning ordinance.

Finally there is no evidence that the property in question is

no lo~ger suitable for single family dwellings; rezoning is simply

more lucrative to the applicant. As the Mississippi Supreme Court

noted in Whea·tley, a zoning ordinance is analogous to a private

restrictive covenant in that homeowners are entitled to rely upon

the permanency of zoning ordinances in the absence of overwhelming

proof that the character. of the entire neighborhood has changed

since the enactment of the existing ordinance and that rezoning is -necessary to the public good.

-- . .. ..-

~OF COUNSEL:

ROBERTS & CLISBY, P.A • . Post Office Box 240 Oxford, MS 38655 (601) 234-4031

Respectfully submitted,

ROB§T~ }~fJMJ

8

• • Q/i1Jlan. !B. 2.inn

219 t!.awl .Lanr.

CJxfoul, .::Atf.tHiHipfal 38655 August 8, 1988

TO: Ben A.Smith, Administrative Official City of Oxford, Miss. and

Oxford Planning Cormrl.ssion

Gentlemen:

•

I own residential property at 219 Carol lane (lot 3 and part lot 4, Bramlett Gardens - part LLA) that I feel could be greatly effected as a result of the rezoning request by Mrs. J. P. McLaurin.

~ , Entry and/or exit to this 9 acre area would have to be made by an extension of Carol lane.

From a monetary standpoint I do know the change from RA to RB could be detrimental to the value of my property and others in this area.

Your consideration of all concerned would be P,reatly appreciated.

Yours truly, t! ~~~·~ cc

I I ~

•

Mr. Ben Smith Director of Planning

and Development City of Oxford City Hall Oxford, MS 38655

• /2tC:.. - 7/Zl

217 Carol Lane Oxford, MS 38655

July 27, 1988

Re: Rezoning Request by Mrs. J.P. McLaurin

Dear Mr. Smith:

As requested at the hearing which took place July 11, 1988, I am writing my concerns and protest about the possible rezoning of an area very close to my residence.

I live at 217 Carol Lane which connects to McLaurin Drive which apparently would be the main (or one of the main) entrances to the area proposed for rezoning from R-A to R-B.

My wife and I purchased the property on Carol Lane in April of 1980. It was chosen by us for a number of reasons. Among them was the fact that it was a stable neighborhood which had no changes over a number of years. In addition, Carol Lane is a dead end street which, therefore, results in minimal traffic. The covenants as set forth in Bramlett Gardens II signed by both Dr. and Mrs. McLaurin also were important factors. As you have a copy of the covenants, I will not enumerate them here, but the fact that houses had to have 2000 square feet and numerous restrictions concerning out buildings certainly were significant factors in our decision.

I ,:. 4' -

""• • • Since we moved to Carol Lane in 1980 I have seen no changes in the neighborhood at all with the exception of one single family home which was built during that time. Obviously it is a very stable neighborhood.

Rezoning would result in a very significant change in the neighborhood no matter what price or quality of construction might be mentioned. As we are all aware, the rezoning request cannot utilize information which is simply possible construction possibilities. We certainly know that if the area is rezoned, construction need only meet minimum building code standards.

Therefore, we wish to join numerous other neighborhood residents and request that the Oxford Planning Commission deny the rezoning requested by Mrs. McLaurin. Your thorough review and consideration is appreciated.

Sincerely,

I. I

J, PURVES, McLAURIH and wire. EUGBHIA REAGAN BRAMLETT McLAURJN, Gran tors.

to

CALVIN K. MUTCHLER and wtre, MARGARET N. MUTCHLER, Grantees

. , WAR,RAHTY OBED

'.

For and In consideration of ten dollars ($10,00) cash In hand paid and other

good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of all of which la hereby

acknowledged, we, J. PURVES McLAURIH and wife, EUGENIA REAGAN BRAMLETT

McLAURIH, do hereby sell, convey, and warrant unto CALVIN K. MUTCHLER and

wlCe, MARGARET N, MUTCHLER, as Joint tenants with the right or survivorship

and not as tenants In common, the following described r~ property situated In

Lafayette County, Mississippi. to-wit: \ .. ' ....

TOWNSHIP 8 SOUTH. RANGE 3 WEST

SECTION 22: Beginning at an Iron pipe nt the SE corner or llrtlmlett Gardens Subdivision, Part 2-A, said Iron pipe also being the SE corner of Lot 118 or said subdivision, Run thence from said Iron pipe, H 02° 331 W a distance or 167.85 feet to a stake on the South R/W line of Carol Lane. Run thence S 87° 02' E a distance of 110.0 feet to an Iron pipe. Run thence S 02° 331 B a distance or 167,85 Ccet to a stake. Run thence N 87° 02' W a distance or 110,0 feet to the point oC beginning. All lying and being In 022, T 8 S, R 3 W, situated In the City of Oxford, La!ayetlo County, Mississippi and containing 0,42 acres, more or less.

The above--dcseribed property ls bounded on the North by the Intersection or Carol Lane and McLaurln Drive Cnctut1lly 50 feet or the North line o( this property fronts on these streets and 60 feet fronts on property owned by the Orantors herein). The property Is bounded on the East by properly owned by the Grantors herein. The property ls bounded on the South by the OxCord Separate Municipal School District properly. The property fs bounded on the West by the property previously conveyed to the Grantees herein In Book 284 at page 7.

There Is excepted Crom this conveyance a utility and sewage casement which ls reserved by the Granters herein. Said easement Is ten rcet wide on the East and West property line and flCteen feet wide along lhe South property line.

This bcfng a portion o( that parcel Inherited by the Grantor, Eugenia Reagan Bramlett McLaurin, by Wiil recorded In Will Book ----:-3!!'--=--.-at page J.Jol - LJ® of the land records or Lafayette county, Mississippi.

This conveyance Is subject to the restrictive covenants or Bramlett Gardens

Subdivision Part II-A as recorded In Book &{4 (o at page 3L-f L.f and to

any easements or record.

Taxes for tho year 1987 wfll be paid by the Granters.

Possession will be granted wfth delivery oC the deed.

.,.

' '

f

/' I

' -

I ~

I I , I

I I ,, !

• WITNESS OUR SIGNATURES this the Jbih

.·

STATE OF MlSSISSJPPl

COUtlTY OP LAFAYETTE

•

... ...-. ..... ~ \ .. ,.. ..... . . "

' ....

Personally appeared before me. the undersigned authorlt:;- In and for the

jurisdiction aforesaid, the within-named J. PURVES McLAURIN and wile, BUOBNIA

REAGAN BRAMLRTT McLAURIN, who, arter having been duly sworn, on oath stated

that they signed and dallvered the foregoing Warranty Deed on the do.y ond year

and for the purposes therein appearing.

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE MB this :Jt.ot.h day of

Au 6™'t- ise7.

~ "(~ rnfoot1 . My Commission Expires:

£na11 s, 1991

Grantors' address Grantees' address

216 Carol Lane 208 McLaurin Drive Ox!ord. Mississippi 38655 601-234-2536 ~

Oxford, Mlssi;;sfppl 38655 601-234-2089

.:frATE OF MISSlSSIPPl l..AFAYETTE COUNTY

I, BILL PLUNK. Chancery Clerk of Lafayette Coun-ty In said State hereby certify that the withfn Instru-ment wns filed for record nt-.:..?f.~·:..· 2-do'nw... ____ _ o'clock..Z..M, on the :..sl1Jfay of du.4 · 19.i.2.anJl d~ recorded in book -:::::Jn:""""ifZ~...,..,._: --:-::

on page ~Z~. Giv~errw hand ~nd ~·.~~.\<fl. .... i;.IN, t:3, '7 tJ.,

Of ~Jl?f .. .. ~:._ At' K/ Ii, BILL t>LlJf\SC( rn~··I!

.f.3it: ~{.tZ!N '7nt1~ $. ~ .

•'

. I

CHCSTCR \.. SUMNCRS

Wll,.I,. A, HICK ... AN

S. T. RA'1'8URN

H, SCOT SPRAGINS

ANORCW K. HOWORYH

OAVIO O, O'OONNCt..t.'

OAVIO I.. CAI.OCR

July 8, 1988

Mr. Ben Smith City of Oxford On The Square

• SUMNEH.S, HICKMAN & RAYBURN

A.TTOnNEYS AT L11.w

POST O''ICC 801( "430

Oxironn, )hss1ssu•r1

300GG

HAND DELIVERED

Oxford, Mississippi 38655

Re: McLaurin zoning Matter Our File No.: 6.488207Z4

Dear Ben:

• 13011 MAOISON AVCNUC

ARCA COOC 801

TCLCPHONC Z3"4•1"40"4

TCLCCOPICR ISO l•Z38•Z587

In regard to the above matter, which has been set for hearing before the Planning Commission on July 11, 1988, it is my request that the hearing be continued until the August meeting of the Commission. My calculations indicate that this meeting will be held August 8, 1988.

I have discussed this matter with Bill Sloan, and he has indicated to me that obtaining this continuance would not be a problem. Therefore, unless I hear otherwise, I will assume that we will be prepared to present this matter before the Planning Commission on the August 8 meeting.

Thank you for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely yours,

S~Hi~URN

Andrew K. Howorth

AKH/gsc

cc: William T. Sloan Mrs. Eugenia McLaurin

,, _.,.,_

•

' . (.>

• PROOF OF PUBLICATION

THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

LAFAYETTE COUNTY.

Personally appeared before me, a notary

public in and for said County and State, the

undersigned

Mrs. Nina Goolsby Who, after being duly sworn, deposes and says

that she is the .......... ~~.i.~9-1: ....•••••••••••• ·-····· Of the Oxford Eagle, a newspaper published

weekly in the City of Oxford, in saiCl County

and State, and that the said newspaper has

been .pu~hed for more.,j_~ne year and

that~ ~/

f P,jkfr~ a tru~ch is hereto attached Willi

published for .................... consecutive weeks

in said newspaper as follows:

VOLUME NO. DATE

~--zf.-lf

Sworn to and subscribed before me this

J.2J.:?2 .. dayo!.~---·-• 19.fl._.

-~-~-~--Ll~---·-···· ·······-~ Notan· Public, Lafa\'Clt~.Connty, M" ' ippi

. ,$:,,:~g-p7~~~1 / My commission cxpirfs ·~-: l(- /' • .. '· ~

~ ""'·· .. ,...,.... ~ _ ........ I,.._, /.,,.~_.,.

~-~f ~=---~ :: __ ;'°""' ~ - -. - ' ........... ,,,.., ~ .. " .::.

- ,.- ... ,,- ---; ....... ..;:

... ,.. .... _ -...... __ ... ~·-~ -,- ,. -... .._.._ /

• • '

PUBLIC NOTICE

Notice is hereby given to all parties in interest and citizens of the City of Oxford, MississiJU>i, · that Ms. J.P. HcLaurin has filed an application with the undersigned to rezone the fol-lowing described property from R-A Residential to

R-B Residential

AVE

RA .RA :

(Reduce map to 1 column)

.RA

Said application will be heard by the Oxford Planning Commission at the 'City Hall'in Oxford, Ms. on July 11:, •/ • 1988, at 5:00 p.m.: at which time all parties in interest, and citizen~will be heard, after which a recorranendation will be made to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Oxford, Ms., which may act upon the recommendation of the Oxford Planning Corranission without further

•

( I I J .. ' t

. '

i I

public hearing; provided, however, that any party aggrieved with • the recommendation of the Oxford Planning Commission shall be en-titled to a public hearing before the Mayor and Board of Aldermen 1 of the City of Oxford, Ms., with due public notice thereof after publication for the time as provided in the Oxford Zoning Ordinance.

~ Administrative Official

June 24, 1988

~

I I I . I I

i I

• /

........

.... 17

li ~

115 Li"iCc

114 1:l.iEC ....

nr

1$

.ll l

.,r

!.!?.Q. ~ 1.uc•

••r ' .. .. ~ 11 20

·t ~ ~ ~ ~ 11~ST 1.1.n1sT

0

~al

.. .. .. .. !! !_Cl! ~ I• .il ~

... .. nr "" 21 u Zl

; 103 '\. fil 1.uer" :

101 ~

lct(o' I. ~-~ -,

z •00'• I

11 l --'i.--.'j' • 1•r__...--- .._....... .._.__...---- ..... ". ------.1 ,), ' ? •

4

.. ··cu01.. .. ~

·~ ,_

i. ~ 2 !

.. .... ~ IJ.h't ...

' .... .... -w' --

~ 9

1 • 11r

oil U.l.C~

OXfOAO IAINICl.'.l~ SU.oJl.l.U < $CHOO!. DISUICT

• -::::z G, .,· _24'-:t :-::zz. :'."" .

re~ J

:-· 4-JS.'

f .·

\

J'o !:>t:. Re: Z'oJ-..l !::t? 9.o Ac.Ra?

BO .~

OIST.

.. _....._) _

J

~'

Su'

-~·---J·';-...-

......__ ... .....;-......,..__.i:.,,__, __ .. ____ _._ __ __.

.. '

~ l . - ..

' . ~ - -,....._, '"'">--.----. .... -

RoBERTs & CLISBY, P.A. ATTOKNEYS AT LAW

J'OsTomCE BOX:UQ

OXFORD, MlSS1SSIPPI !IM55

... _ ......... ~·--- ---···--·--=-----·---...-...."'· .... ~ .. ----~---·-·----- .......- --

'.•.~ .~ ........ ·--

i.-.....