### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT KNOXVI LLE June 8, 200 4 S es sio n GI BR A LT A RTA F T H IG HW A Y LI M IT ED P A R TN ER SH IPv.

THE TOW N OF WALDEN, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Ham ilton Coun ty No. 02-1030 Howell N. Pe oples, Chan cellor

No. E2003-02523-COA- R3-CV - F ILED NOVEMBER 30, 2004

Gibraltar Taft Hig hway

L imited Partnership, throug h its ge neral p ar t n er, The Raines Group ( “the plai n t i ff”), filed a n application with the Town of Walden’s B oard of

Alderme n (“the Boa

rd”) , seeking a permit to bui ld a townhouse project on property located w ithin W alden. The Boa rd denie d the plaint if

f’ s a pp lic a tio n. Th e plaint if

f the n fil e d a pet iti on fo r writ of c e rt ior ari in the tr ia l c ou rt

. Following a hea

ring , that court upheld the decision of t he Board, finding that the B oard ha d not acted illega lly , arbitra

rily , or ca priciously in rejec ting the application. The pla intiff appea ls, contending that th e tr ia l c ou rt

e rr e d in its de te rm inatio n. We a ff ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Aff irm ed; Case R em anded
C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which H ER SCH EL P. F RAN KS , P.J ., and W I L L I AM H. INMAN , S R .J ., joined.
Allen L . McCallie, Christie Kizer Grot, and William L . Br own, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee , for the appellant, Gibraltar Taft Hig hway L imited Partnership, throug h its g ener al partn er , T h e R aines Group, Inc. Ronald D. Wells, S tacy

Ly nn Arc her, and Mic hael J. S tewart, Chattanoog a, Te nnessee , for the appellee s, the Town of Walden and its Boar d of Aldermen.

OP IN ION
I.
On Se pte mbe r 1 6, 19 96 , th e plaint if f a c qu ir e d a 15 -a c re tr a c t of pr op e rt y (“ the pr op e rty ” ) i n an unincor

pora t ed p ar t of Ha milton C ounty . Two we eks later , the Town of Walden annexed the property and chang ed the zoning of the property to an R -1 residential district. Such a desig nation-2-

preve nted any

commerc ia

l d e v e lo pment and re stricted the de velopment of re sidential property to one re sid e nc e pe r t wo -a c re lot . H ow e ve r, Wal de n’ s zon ing or din a nc e a llo we d f or plann e d u nit developments (“ PUD s ”), suc h as townhouses, to be built in R-1 districts, provided the PUD application wa s f

ir s t a p p r o v e d b y th eCh att an o o g a

/H ami lt o n CountyReg ional Planning Ag ency (“the Agenc y ”), a nd there afte r appr oved by the B oard. O nce the Boa rd appr oved the a

pplication, the app lic a nt w ou ld b e iss ue d a Spe c ia l Co nd iti on s Pe rm it, wh ich all ow e d it to p ro c e e d w ith construction.
I n late 19 98 , th e plaint if

f su bmi tte d to the Ag e nc y a n app lic a tio n to bu ilda PUD tow nh ou se projec t on the property

. The Ag ency approve d the PUD. The plaintiff then submitted its application to the Boa

rd. Afte r holding public meeting s to consider the a pplication, t h e Board r ejec ted the plaintiff’s application. The plaintiff did not seek f urther r eview of

this decision. Approxim ately

three and a ha lf y ear s later, in Jul y , 2002, the plaint i ff submitt ed a r evised PUD application to the Ag ency . The Ag ency ag ain approve d the application, subject to the plaintiff me e tin g c e rt a in c on dit ion s. On Se pte mbe r 1 0, 20 02 , th e B oa rd he ld a pu bli c he ari ng fo r the pu rp os e of discussing t h e plaintiff’s new application. Ove r 100 peopleattended the hearing. T he B oard hear d from numer ous witnesses, both in support of and in opposition to t h e ap p l i ca tion. At the conclusion of the he aring , the B oard, by a vote of

two ag ainst and one a bstaining, de nied the plaintiff’s application. The plaintiff the n filed a pe tition for writ of ce rtiorari with the trial court on Oc tober 9, 2002. The trial c ourt found no abuse of di scre tion in the Board’ s decision and further found that the B oard didno t a c t il le g a lly , a

rb itr ari ly , o r c apric iou sly . Fro m th is j ud g me nt, the plaint if f a pp e a ls.
II.
I n Mc Cal le n v . City of

Me mphis , 786 S.W .2d 633 (Tenn. 1990), the Supreme Court stated the fo llo wi ng re g ard ing thesta nd ardof re vie w i n a

c a se su c h a s th e on e no w b e fo re us :
Re vie w u n d e r

t h e c o m m o n l a w w r i t[o f c e r t i o r ar i ] i s l i m i t e d to wh e the r “ the inf

e ri or bo ardor

tribun a l ( 1) ha s e xce e de d it s jurisdiction, or (2) ha s acte d illega lly , arbitra rily , or fr audulently .”
* * *
The c ourts must determine whe ther the ac tion of the [local administrative body ] in the ex erc ise of its administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial func tion was illeg al or in excess of jurisdiction.
* * *-3- Th e “ fair ly

de batabl e , r a tio na l ba sis ,” a s a pp lie d to le g isl a tiv e a c ts, a ndthe “ ill e g a l, a

rb itr ary and capric iou s” stand ardre la tiv e to administrative ac ts are e ssenti al l ythe same. In either instance , the court ’s p r i mar

y resolve is to refrain f

rom substitut ing its j udgment for that of the local governm ental body

. An ac tion will be invalidated only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion. I f “any

possible rea son” exis ts justi fy i n g t h e ac tion, it wil l be upheld. B oth leg islative and administrative decisions are presumed to be valid and a he avy burden of proof rests upon the shoulder s of the part y wh o challeng es the action.
Id. at 638, 640, 641 (empha sis a dded) (citations omitted). Under this standard, we are not permitted to rewe igh the evidenc e, or sc rutiniz e the intrinsic cor rec tn ess of the de cision. Laffe rty v. City of Winchester , 4 6 S. W.2 d 7 52 , 7 59 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0)

. “ A de c isi on by a loc a l zon ing bo ardwi ll be conside red a

rbitrary only when ther e is no evid en ce i n t h e record to support it.” Id. (citation omitted).
III

. The plaintiff r aises thre e issues for our re v i ew , which we think can be suc cinctly stated as a sin g le iss ue : D id the tr ia l c ou rt e rr in f ind ing that th e Board acte d w ith in i ts auth ority wh e n it denied the pla intiff’s application for a PUD? The plainti ff asserts t hat t here is no materia l evidence t o s u p p o r t t h e B o ar d ’ s d e c i s i o n
. T h i s l e a d s i tt o c o n c l u d e t h a tt h e B o ar d a c t e d i l l e g a l l y, ar b i tr ar i l y, and ca priciously

. See McCallen , 786 S.W .2d at 641.
The W a ld e n zo n in g o r d in a n c e s e ts f o r th th e f o ll o w in g s tan d ar d s f

o r th e g r a n t o f a

PUD Spe c ia l Co nd iti on s Pe rm it:

Flexibili ty in the arr ang ement of residential uses may be permitted by the [B o ar d ] a s s p e c ia l e xc e p ti o n s in a n y R- 1 RE SID E N T I AL DI STRI CT, provided that the minimum siz e of any trac t of land so ug ht t o be us ed for the [PUD ] sha ll b e te n ( 10 ) a c re s a ndthat a de sir able e nv ir on me nt thr ou g h the us e of g oo d d e sig n p ro c e du re s is a ssu re d, a llo wi ng fl e xibil ity in in divid ua l y ardre qu ir e me nts to pr ov ide fo r mult i- famil y

dw e lli ng un its , tow nh ou se s, a ndtw o f a mil y units, ex cept that such use or uses s hall require a Specia l Condit ional Permit under the terms of ARTI CL E VI of these Re g ulations. (Capitalization in original). Article VI , section 107.3 of t he z oning ordinance authorizes the B oard to consider the f

ollowing in making a dete rmination on a PUD application: The prope r ty a d

ja c e n t to th e ar e a in c lu d e d in th e p lan w il l n o t be adver sely eff ecte d.In W e a v e r v . K n o x C o u n ty B d . o f Z o n in g A p

p e a ls , 12 2 S. W

. 3d 78 1, 785 ( T enn
. Ct

. Ap p. 200 3), we hel d t hat 1

“ s uch f i ndi ng s , wh i l e h el pf

ul , ar e n ot es s ent i al t o ju di ci al r evi ew u nder t he mat er i al evi dence s t andar d” an d “ t he abs enc e o f ex p re ss find ing s o f fa c t d o e s n o t re n d e r [th e lo c a l ad m inistra tive b o d y’s] d e c isio n il le g a l, a rb itra ry o r c a p ric io u s.” Id. -4-

Th e plan is c on sis te nt w ith the int e nt andpu rp os e of the se Reg u lati o n s to p r o mo te p u b li c h e a lth , s a f e ty , mo r a ls , a n d g e n e ral welfa re.
* * *
There is a nee d for suc h development in the pr oposed location.
T h e r e is r e a s o n ab le a s s u r a n c e th a t d e v e lo p me n t w il l p r o cee d acc ording to the spirit and letter of the approve d plans. (L ettering in orig inal omitted).
I n its memorandum opinion and order , the trial court, after noting that t h e Bo ar d had not made f indings of f

act, determined that “ther e ar e concerns aff ecting health, saf

ety , and envir onment 1 for the c itiz ens of Walden that the B oard c ould conclude a re not satisfa ctorily

resolved, a ddresse d, or assure d by

the proposed pla n.” B ased upon the court’s r eview of the transc ri pt of the hea

ring b ef o re t h e B o ar d , t h e c o u rt co n cl u d ed t h at t h es e c o n ce rn s i n cl u d ed t h e f o l l o wi n g: [V] arious citizens made stateme nts about the impact of the PUD on the ir su rr ou nd ing pr op e rt y , th e po te nti a l ha zar d o f le akin g g a s li ne s, the loss of the nat u ral beauty of the a rea cause d by

the re moval of tree s an d other ve g etation, the lac k of spec ific deta ils about the operation of proposed de tention ponds to handle surfa cew ater run-of f and the impact on surrounding properties, the absenc e of information about the desig n, siz e and location of a pr oposed pumping station for sewa g e fr om the plan, and the incre ased tra ffic ha zard resulting from the location of the entra nce to the PUD.
Sta tin g that McCallen , 7 86 S.W. 2da t 64 1, ins truc ts that “ a dmi nis tr a tiv e de c isi on s a re pr e su me d to be v a li d a n d a

h e a v y b u r d e n o f

p r o o f r e s ts u p o n th e s h o u ld e r s o f th e p ar ty w h o c h a ll e n g e s the action,” the trial court he ld that the plaintiff fa il ed “to m eet the bur den of showing an abuse of discretion by

the B oard or

that its actions were illega l, arbitrary or ca pricious.”
Ou r r e vie w o f the re c or d in th e in st ant ca se pe rs ua de s u s th a t th e B oa rddidno t e xce e d it s authority or ac t illega ll y , arbitra

rily , or ca

priciously when it denied the plaintiff’s application. Despite the p lain ti f

f ’ s s tr e n u o u s a s s e r ti o n s to th e c o n tr ar y , w e f in d th a t th e p lain ti f

f ’ s p lan f or handling sewa g e lef

t many questions unanswer ed. The plaintiff contends that, in its application-5-

prese nted t o the Ag ency , it laid out a plan to use an on-site sa nd-filtere d septic sy stem, but that subsequent to the Ag ency ’s approva l and prior to the plaintiff’s pre sentation to the Boa rd, it rec eived permission from the Ha milton C ounty Wastewater

Treatment A uthority to connec t a private 7,700 foot long sewer line to the s ewe r sy stem in the t own of Signal Mountain. I t is the plaintiff’s position t h at i tp re s en t ed b o t h o f t h es e o p t i o n s t o t h e B o ar d , al l o w i n g t h e B o a r d t o d ec i d e w h i ch s ew age sy stem was pre fer able. The Boa rd cla ims, however, that the plaintiff, in its presentation to the B oa rd , s ho we d th a t it

c le arl y int e nd e d to for e g o th e sa nd -f iltratio n s y ste m in fa vo r o f the pu bli c sewa g e line. Furthermore , the Boa rd asserts that the plaintiff did not have adequat e i n fo rm ation about the desig n, siz e or loc ation of the sew ag e pumpi n g station that would be nee ded under the public sewa g e line plan. In short, the t estimony reg arding the t ype of sewa g e sy stem to be used and the ma nn e r i n w hic h it

wo uldbe imp le me nte d is amb iguo us a t be st. As su c h a mbi g uit y c ou ld certainly raise conce rns over the public health, safe ty and welfa re of the citizens of the to wn , t he B oa rdc ou ld r a tio na lly

ba se its de c isi on to d e ny

the plaint if

f’ s a pp lic a tio n o n th is b a sis

. I n ad d i t ion, we find that the issue of traff ic was not suff

iciently addre ssed by

the plaintiff. Whil e the plaintiff pr esente d testimonythat the entrance t o the PUD was w ell within the sight dis ta nc e re qu ir e d b y

the Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f T rans po rt a tio n, se ve ra l c iti zen s e xpre sse d th e ir conce rns about the entra nce, including the dang ers prese nted by fog , slick roads, a nd a blind curve near the entra nce. A s pointed out by the B oard, the se citizens were familiar with the road off of which the entra nce would be located and the weather c onditions t hat would adve rsely aff ect driving in that are a. This court has previously stat ed that “we know of no rea son why

the views of the c on c e rn e d r e sid e nts wh os e e xp erie nc e s a re re le va nt .

. . c a nn ot b e c on sid e re d c on c omi ta ntl y wi th those of experts.” Cone Oil Co. v. Wil liam son Cou nty Reg’l Plann ing C om m ’n , No. 01A01-9604- CH-00154, 1996 WL

465222, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. App. W.S., f iled Aug ust 16, 1996) . I n considering the views of the se citizens, the Boa rd could have rea sonably conclude d that these tra ffic c oncerns would neg atively

impact the public health, safe ty and welfa re, and could ha ve denie d the plaintiff’s app lic a tio n o n th is b a sis

. Having found suffic ient criteria on which the B oard could have ba sed its denial, we do not find it nece ssary t o re v i ew the other c oncerns raised by the trial court. Under McCallen , the exis tence of “any possible rea son” j ustify ing the local adminis trative body ’s action necessitates that the decision be upheld. Id. at 641. Clearly , there is more than one “ possible rea son” justify ing the Boa rd’s a ction in the instant case, and as such, we are constraine d to uphold that action. By way of a sub- issue, the plaintiff conte nds that, beca use i ts application satisfied a ll of the require ments set forth in the zonin g ordinanc e and be cause it met all of the additional conditions stipulated by

the Ag ency , the B oard la cked a uthority to de ny

the plaintiff’s a

pplication. I n support of this contention, the plaintiff cites numerous case s in w hich this c ourt overturne d the dec ision of a loca l administrative body ’s denial of a permit because we de termined that the loc al body ’s dec ision was a rbitrary and that it failed to a ct wi t h i n t he existi ng standards a nd g uidelines set forth in theSee H u tc h e rso n v . L a u d e rd a le C o u n ty B d . o f Z o n in g A p

p e a ls , 12 1 S.W

. 3 d 37 2 (T enn. C t

. A p p
. 20 0 3 ); 2 W ilso n C o u n ty Y o u th E m e rg e n c y S h e lter, In c . v . W ilso n C o u n ty , 1 3 S .W .3 d 3 3 8 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 9 ); H em ont ol or v . W ilso n C o u n ty B d

. o f Z o n in g A p

p e a ls , 8 8 3 S .W .2 d 6 1 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 4 ); M u lli n s v . C ity o f K n o x v ill e , 665 S .W .2 d 3 9 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 3 ); S e x to n v . A n d e rso n C o u n ty , 5 8 7 S .W .2 d 6 6 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 7 9 ); D om i ncovi t ch
v . W ilso n C o u n ty B d

. o f Z o n in g A p

p e a ls , N o . M 1 9 9 9 -0 2 3 3 4 -C O A -R 3 -C V , 2 0 0 0 W L 1 6 5 7 8 4 3 (T e n n . C t. A p p . M .S ., f i l ed N o vem b er 6, 2 0 0 0 ). -6- applicable ordinanc e. Howeve r, the plaintiff’s relianc e on these case s is mispl ace d. I n the instant 2
case , the B oard w as ac t i n g within its established standa rds and g uidelines when it denie d the plaint if f’ s app lic a tio n. Th e zon ing or din a nc e un de r w hic h th e plaint if f w a s p ro c e e din g c le arl y allowed the Boa

rd to c onsider issues of public hea lth, safety , and we lfare , among other thing s. As we ha ve pr e vio us ly fo un d, the B oa rd ha d mor e than one po ssi ble re a so n on whi c h to bas e its de nia l, and ea ch of those r easons c ould have be en pre mised upon conce rn over the public hea lth, safety and welfa re of Walden and its citiz ens.
Ac c or din g ly , w e fi nd that the re is ample e vid e nc e to sup po rt the de c isi on of the B oa rdin this case , see La

ff e rty , 46 S.W .2d at 7 5 9, and we hold that the action of theBoa rd in denying the plaintiff’s application was not illeg al, ar bitrary , or ca

pricious. See McCallen , 786 S.W .2d at 641. Acc ording ly , we f

ind no error

in the trial court’ s decision to uphold t h e d ec i s i o n of the B oard.

I V.
Th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d. Th is c a se is r e ma nd e d f or the c oll e c tio n o f c os ts assessed below, pursuant to applicable law. Costs on appea l are taxed to the appellant, Gibraltar T aft Hig hway L imited Partnership, throug h its ge nera l partner , The Raines G roup, I nc.

_______________________________ CHARLES D. SUSANO, J R., J UDGE