IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

June 8, 2004 Session

GIBRALTAR TAFT HIGHWAY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v.

THE TOWN OF WALDEN, ET AL.

 Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hamilton County

No. 02-1030 Howell N. Peoples, Chancellor

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

Gibraltar Taft Highway Limited Partnership, through its general partner, The Raines Group (“the

plaintiff”), filed an application with the Town of Walden’s Board of Aldermen (“the Board”),

seeking a permit to build a townhouse project on property located within Walden. The Board denied

the plaintiff’s application. The plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the trial court.

Following a hearing, that court upheld the decision of the Board, finding that the Board had not acted

illegally, arbitrarily, or capriciously in rejecting the application. The plaintiff appeals, contending

that the trial court erred in its determination. We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court

Affirmed; Case Remanded

CHARLES D.SUSANO,JR.,J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which HERSCHEL P.FRANKS,P.J.,

and WILLIAM H. INMAN, SR.J., joined.

Allen L. McCallie, Christie Kizer Grot, and William L. Brown, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the

appellant, Gibraltar Taft Highway Limited Partnership, through its general partner, The Raines

Group, Inc.

Ronald D. Wells, Stacy Lynn Archer, and Michael J. Stewart, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for the

appellees, the Town of Walden and its Board of Aldermen.

OPINION

I.

On September 16, 1996, the plaintiff acquired a 15-acre tract of property (“the property”) in

an unincorporated part of Hamilton County. Two weeks later, the Town of Walden annexed the

property and changed the zoning of the property to an R-1 residential district. Such a designation
-2-

prevented any commercial development and restricted the development of residential property to one

residence per two-acre lot. However, Walden’s zoning ordinance allowed for planned unit

developments (“PUDs”), such as townhouses, to be built in R-1 districts, provided the PUD

application was first approved by the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Regional Planning Agency (“the

Agency”), and thereafter approved by the Board. Once the Board approved the application, the

applicant would be issued a Special Conditions Permit, which allowed it to proceed with

construction. 

In late 1998, the plaintiff submitted to the Agency an application to build a PUD townhouse

project on the property. The Agency approved the PUD. The plaintiff then submitted its application

to the Board. After holding public meetings to consider the application, the Board rejected the

plaintiff’s application. The plaintiff did not seek further review of this decision.

Approximately three and a half years later, in July, 2002, the plaintiff submitted a revised

PUD application to the Agency. The Agency again approved the application, subject to the plaintiff

meeting certain conditions. On September 10, 2002, theBoard held a public hearing for the purpose

of discussing the plaintiff’s new application. Over 100 people attended the hearing. The Board

heard from numerous witnesses, both in support of and in opposition to the application. At the

conclusion of the hearing, the Board, by a vote of two against and one abstaining, denied the

plaintiff’s application.

The plaintiff then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the trial court on October 9, 2002.

The trial court found no abuse of discretion in the Board’s decision and further found that the Board

did not act illegally, arbitrarily, or capriciously. From this judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

II.

In McCallen v. City of Memphis, 786 S.W.2d 633 (Tenn. 1990), the Supreme Court stated

the following regarding the standard of review in a case such as the one now before us:

Review under the common law writ [of certiorari] is limited to

whether “the inferior board or tribunal (1) has exceeded its

jurisdiction, or (2) has acted illegally, arbitrarily, or fraudulently.”

* * *

The courts must determine whether the action of the [local

administrative body] in the exercise of its administrative, judicial or

quasi-judicial function was illegal or in excess of jurisdiction.

* * *
-3-

The “fairly debatable, rational basis,” as applied to legislative acts,

and the “illegal, arbitrary and capricious” standard relative to

administrative acts are essentially the same. In either instance, the

court’s primary resolve is to refrain from substituting its judgment

for that of the local governmental body. An action will be invalidated

only if it constitutes an abuse of discretion. If “any possible reason”

exists justifying the action, it will be upheld. Both legislative and

administrative decisions are presumed to be valid and a heavy burden

of proof rests upon the shoulders of the party who challenges the

action. 

Id. at 638, 640, 641 (emphasis added) (citations omitted). Under this standard, we are not permitted

to reweigh the evidence, or scrutinize the intrinsic correctness of the decision. Lafferty v. City of

Winchester, 46 S.W.2d 752, 759 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). “A decision by a local zoning board will

be considered arbitrary only when there is no evidence in the record to support it.” Id. (citation

omitted).

III.

The plaintiff raises three issues for our review, which we think can be succinctly stated as

a single issue: Did the trial court err in finding that the Board acted within its authority when it

denied the plaintiff’s application for a PUD? The plaintiff asserts that there is no material evidence

to support the Board’s decision. This leads it to conclude that the Board acted illegally, arbitrarily,

and capriciously. See McCallen, 786 S.W.2d at 641. 

The Walden zoning ordinance sets forth the following standards for the grant of a PUD

Special Conditions Permit:

Flexibility in the arrangement of residential uses may be permitted by

the [Board] as special exceptions in any R-1 RESIDENTIAL

DISTRICT, provided that the minimum size of any tract of land

sought to be used for the [PUD] shall be ten (10) acres and that a

desirable environment through the use of good design procedures is

assured, allowing flexibility in individual yard requirements to

provide for multi-family dwelling units, townhouses, and two family

units, except that such use or uses shall require a Special Conditional

Permit under the terms of ARTICLE VI of these Regulations. 

(Capitalization in original). Article VI, section 107.3 of the zoning ordinance authorizes the Board

to consider the following in making a determination on a PUD application:

The property adjacent to the area included in the plan will not be

adversely effected.
In Weaver v. Knox County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 122 S.W.3d 781, 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003), we held that 1

“such findings, while helpful, are not essential to judicial review under the material evidence standard” and “the absence

of express findings of fact does not render [the local administrative body’s] decision illegal, arbitrary or capricious.”

Id.

-4-

The plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of these

Regulations to promote public health, safety, morals, and general

welfare.

* * *

There is a need for such development in the proposed location.

There is reasonable assurance that development will proceed

according to the spirit and letter of the approved plans. 

(Lettering in original omitted).

In its memorandum opinion and order, the trial court, after noting that the Board had not

made findings of fact, determined that “there are concerns affecting health, safety, and environment 1

for the citizens of Walden that the Board could conclude are not satisfactorily resolved, addressed,

or assured by the proposed plan.” Based upon the court’s review of the transcript of the hearing

before the Board, the court concluded that these concerns included the following:

[V]arious citizens made statements about the impact of the PUD on

their surrounding property, the potential hazard of leaking gas lines,

the loss of the natural beauty of the area caused by the removal of

trees and other vegetation, the lack of specific details about the

operation of proposed detention ponds to handle surface water run-off

and the impact on surrounding properties, the absence of information

about the design, size and location of a proposed pumping station for

sewage from the plan, and the increased traffic hazard resulting from

the location of the entrance to the PUD.

Stating that McCallen, 786 S.W.2d at 641, instructs that “administrative decisions are presumed to

be valid and a heavy burden of proof rests upon the shoulders of the party who challenges the

action,” the trial court held that the plaintiff failed “to meet the burden of showing an abuse of

discretion by the Board or that its actions were illegal, arbitrary or capricious.”

Our review of the record in the instant case persuades us that the Board did not exceed its

authority or act illegally, arbitrarily, or capriciously when it denied the plaintiff’s application.

Despite the plaintiff’s strenuous assertions to the contrary, we find that the plaintiff’s plan for

handling sewage left many questions unanswered. The plaintiff contends that, in its application
-5-

presented to the Agency, it laid out a plan to use an on-site sand-filtered septic system, but that

subsequent to the Agency’s approval and prior to the plaintiff’s presentation to the Board, it received

permission from the Hamilton County Wastewater Treatment Authority to connect a private 7,700

foot long sewer line to the sewer system in the town of Signal Mountain. It is the plaintiff’s position

that it presented both of these options to the Board, allowing the Board to decide which sewage

system was preferable. The Board claims, however, that the plaintiff, in its presentation to the

Board, showed that it clearly intended to forego the sand-filtration system in favor of the public

sewage line. Furthermore, the Board asserts that the plaintiff did not have adequate information

about the design, size or location of the sewage pumping station that would be needed under the

public sewage line plan. In short, the testimony regarding the type of sewage system to be used and

the manner in which it would be implemented is ambiguous at best. As such ambiguity could

certainly raise concerns over the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the town, the

Board could rationally base its decision to deny the plaintiff’s application on this basis.

In addition, we find that the issue of traffic was not sufficiently addressed by the plaintiff.

While the plaintiff presented testimony that the entrance to the PUD was well within the sight

distance required by the Tennessee Department of Transportation, several citizens expressed their

concerns about the entrance, including the dangers presented by fog, slick roads, and a blind curve

near the entrance. As pointed out by the Board, these citizens were familiar with the road off of

which the entrance would be located and the weather conditions that would adversely affect driving

in that area. This court has previously stated that “we know of no reason why the views of the

concerned residents whose experiences are relevant . . . cannot be considered concomitantly with

those of experts.” Cone Oil Co. v. Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’n, No. 01A01-9604-

CH-00154, 1996 WL 465222, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. W.S., filed August 16, 1996). In considering

the views of these citizens, the Board could have reasonably concluded that these traffic concerns

would negatively impact the public health, safety and welfare, and could have denied the plaintiff’s

application on this basis.

Having found sufficient criteria on which the Board could have based its denial, we do not

find it necessary to review the other concerns raised by the trial court. Under McCallen, the

existence of “any possible reason” justifying the local administrative body’s action necessitates that

the decision be upheld. Id. at 641. Clearly, there is more than one “possible reason” justifying the

Board’s action in the instant case, and as such, we are constrained to uphold that action.

By way of a sub-issue, the plaintiff contends that, because its application satisfied all of the

requirements set forth in the zoning ordinance and because it met all of the additional conditions

stipulated by the Agency, the Board lacked authority to deny the plaintiff’s application. In support

of this contention, the plaintiff cites numerous cases in which this court overturned the decision of

a local administrative body’s denial of a permit because we determined that the local body’s decision

was arbitrary and that it failed to act within the existing standards and guidelines set forth in the
See Hutcherson v. Lauderdale County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 121 S.W.3d 372 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003); 2

Wilson County Youth Emergency Shelter, Inc. v. Wilson County, 13 S.W.3d 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999); Hemontolor

v. Wilson County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 883 S.W.2d 613 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); Mullins v. City of Knoxville, 665

S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983); Sexton v. Anderson County, 587 S.W.2d 663 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1979); Domincovitch

v. Wilson County Bd. of Zoning Appeals, No. M1999-02334-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 1657843 (Tenn. Ct. App. M.S.,

filed November 6, 2000).

-6-

applicable ordinance. However, the plaintiff’s reliance on these cases is misplaced. In the instant 2

case, the Board was acting within its established standards and guidelines when it denied the

plaintiff’s application. The zoning ordinance under which the plaintiff was proceeding clearly

allowed the Board to consider issues of public health, safety, and welfare, among other things. As

we have previously found, the Board had more than one possible reason on which to base its denial,

and each of those reasons could have been premised upon concern over the public health, safety and

welfare of Walden and its citizens. 

Accordingly, we find that there is ample evidence to support the decision of the Board in this

case, see Lafferty, 46 S.W.2d at 759, and we hold that the action of the Board in denying the

plaintiff’s application was not illegal, arbitrary, or capricious. See McCallen, 786 S.W.2d at 641.

Accordingly, we find no error in the trial court’s decision to uphold the decision of the Board. 

IV.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. This case is remanded for the collection of costs

assessed below, pursuant to applicable law. Costs on appeal are taxed to the appellant, Gibraltar Taft

Highway Limited Partnership, through its general partner, The Raines Group, Inc.

_______________________________

CHARLES D. SUSANO, JR., JUDGE