In previously discussing rezoning decisions, this Court has acknowledged "that ‘it is impossible to articulate or design a particular test for determining what is sufficient evidence to show a material change and a public need to support rezoning.’ " Speyerer , 139 So.3d at 774 (¶ 14) (quoting Madison Citizens Against Rezoning v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Supervisors , 101 So.3d 711, 714-15 (¶ 13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) ). Even so, our caselaw clearly establishes that, to support on appeal a zone reclassification, the record should, at a minimum, contain the following:

But the project stalled for some time due to the 2008 financial crisis and an appeal over the grant of planned unit development (PUD) status to Livingston. See Madison Citizens Against Rezoning v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 101 So.3d 711 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012).

¶20. We have said "that ‘it is impossible to articulate or design a particular test for determining what is sufficient evidence to show a material change and a public need to support rezoning.’ " White v. City of Starkville, 283 So. 3d 189, 192 (¶6) (Miss. Ct. App. 2019) (quoting Speyerer v. Bd. of Sup’rs of Madison Cnty., 139 So. 3d 771, 774 (¶14) (Miss. Ct. App. 2014) (quoting Madison Citizens Against Rezoning v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 101 So. 3d 711, 714-15 (¶13) (Miss. Ct. App. 2012))). On the other hand, we have also held:

Recently, this Court considered the appeal of a rezoning decision made by the Board. Madison Citizens Against Rezoning v. Madison Cnty. Bd. of Sup'rs, 101 So.3d 711 (Miss.Ct.App.2012). There, we held that “[i]t is impossible to articulate or design a particular test for determining what is sufficient evidence to show a material change and a public need to support rezoning....”