The Mississippi Court of Appeals has upheld a variance granted to Mark Burlingame, allowing him to keep a newly constructed shop in his backyard, despite objections from his neighbor, John K. Vaughan. The court's decision, issued on September 1, 2026, affects property owners in Jackson County and clarifies the standards for granting variances under local zoning ordinances.
The dispute arose after Burlingame built a large accessory building on his property, only to find out later that it was closer to the property line than allowed by local zoning laws. This ruling is significant as it highlights the complexities of property disputes and the importance of accurate property line information.
Background
John K. Vaughan sold a piece of property to Mark Burlingame in early 2022. Vaughan, who owns approximately 92 acres behind Burlingame's property, indicated where he believed the property line was located based on a row of planted trees. This information was critical because Jackson County requires new buildings to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the rear property line.
Burlingame obtained the necessary building permits and constructed an 1,800-square-foot shop, which cost about $25,000. After completing the building, Vaughan complained that it was too close to his property line. Upon re-measuring, Burlingame discovered that one corner of the shop was only 8 feet from the property line instead of the required 10 feet.
In response to the situation, Burlingame applied for a variance from the county to allow the shop to remain in its current location. Vaughan opposed the variance, arguing that Burlingame's mistake was self-created because he did not obtain a survey before building. However, the county's planning commission granted the variance, stating that exceptional and undue hardship would result if the variance were denied. Vaughan then appealed this decision to the Jackson County Circuit Court, which upheld the planning commission's ruling.
The Ruling
The Mississippi Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Burlingame, affirming the earlier decisions made by the planning commission and the circuit court. The court found no error in the decision to grant the variance, stating, "the variance was properly granted." The ruling emphasized that the hardship experienced by Burlingame was not self-created, as he relied on the information provided by Vaughan during the property sale.
The court noted that the planning commission had sufficient evidence to support its decision, including testimony from the planning director and neighbors. The court highlighted that the variance would not be injurious to the neighborhood, as Vaughan owned a large tract of land behind Burlingame's property, which was not developed.
Impact
This ruling has important implications for property owners in Jackson County and potentially beyond. It clarifies that reliance on information provided by a property seller can be a valid reason for granting a variance, even if the building does not meet strict zoning requirements. The decision also underscores the importance of local planning commissions in assessing variances and the evidence required to support their decisions.
Property owners may feel more empowered to seek variances if they can demonstrate that their situations are based on misunderstandings or misrepresentations regarding property lines. This case sets a precedent that could influence future property disputes and zoning cases in Mississippi.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Vaughan plans to appeal this decision further. However, the ruling stands as a significant legal precedent regarding property variances in the state.