### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE O ct obe r 8, 200 3 S es sio n B & B ENTE RPRISES OF WI LSO N CO., LLC, ET AL 

### . v.

CIT Y OF LEBANO N, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Wilson Cou nty No. 02111 C.K . Sm ith, Chan cellor

No. M2003- 00267-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Dece m ber 16, 2004

Th is a pp e a l ar ise s fr om a

dis pu te be tw e e n th e City

of L e bano n Pl a nn ing Com mis sio n a ndre a l e state develope rs re g arding approva l of a proposed subdivision. The planning commission approved the plans for the first phase of this subdivision but then di sapprove d the pl ans for the s econd and third phases. Thedevelope rs filed a petition for writ of c ertiora ri in the Ch an ce ry Court for Wilson Countyseeking judicial revie w of the c ommissi on’s ac tions. T h e t ri al court g rante d the writ and determined that the planning commission acted ar bitrarily and ca priciously by denying a

pproval of the final subdivision plans. We affirm the tria l court’s de cision. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed
W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M

. S

. , d el i vere d the opinion of the court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J J ., joined.
Der rick C. Sm i t h , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or the a ppellants, Cityof L ebanon, City of L ebanon Planning Commission, P atsy Ander son, Ronnie Kelly , David Cook, D on Fox, Cl aude Wilson, J oe Holbrook, Nick L ocke, Jan Mang rum, J oe Hay es, and J ohnnie Peyton, in their capa city as member s of the Commission.
Jer e N. Mc Cul loc h, L e ba no n, Te nn e sse e , f or theapp e lle e s, B & B En te rp ri se s o f Wils on Co. , L L C,
a ndHa l B on e d/b /a

Ha l B on e En te rp ri se s.
OP IN ION
I.
I n 1 9 9 8 , Jo h n H il l s e t o u t t o d e v e lo p a s u b d iv is io n c a ll e d “ Ch ap arr a l” c o n tain in g 7 0 to 75 homes on a tra ct of re al prope rty within the Cit y of L ebanon in Wilson County

. The City of L ebanon Pla nn ing Com mis sio n in iti a lly de c lin e d to app ro ve thesu bd ivi sio n, e ve n th ou g h it c omp lie d w ith all applicable ordinanc es, because of objections by the neighbors. Mr. Hil l soug ht judicial review of the planning commission’s de cision, and the Chance ry Court f or Wil son Countyconclude d thatW e w ill re fer to B & B E n te rp rise s a n d H a l B o n e c o llec tive ly as “B & B E n te rp rise s.” 1

P ha se T w o co ntained 3 7 l o t s. 2

P ha se T hre e c o ntained 3 2 l o t s. 3

D espit e t he f act t hat t he reco rd o f t he Jul y 24 , 20 0 1 heari ng, s uch as i t i s, m akes no r e fer e n c e t o any 4 “cond i t i o ns” t o t he p l anni ng co m m i ss i o n’ s ap p roval o f t he p reli m ina ry p la t fo r t he ent i re s ub d i vi si o n, t he p l anni ng com mi s s i on an d t he devel op er appare nt l y di s cus s ed i ncl udi ng a 15- foo t cons er vat i on/ buf fer ea s ement on Phas es T wo and T hree. T here was al so som e d i scus si o n regardi ng i ncreasi ng t he si ze o f a num b er of

l o t s i n t he subd i vi si o n.
O n e pr oper t y ow n er obs er v ed: 5

R i gh t n o w , o f

c o urse , yo u kn o w w ha t m y co m m un i t y l o o ks li ke , nice b rick ho use s, bi g l ot s , t r ee s , e very t hi ng. N ow y ou ’ r e g oi n g t o be g oi n g w i t h 1, 200 s qu ar e- foot ho use s, vinyl si d i ng , p o ssi b l y grav el d rives. -2- theplann ing c omm iss io n had ac te d a rb itr ari ly a ndc apric iou sly

a ndre ma nd e d th e matte r w ith direc tions to approve the subdivision.

I n an ef fort to addr ess the ne i gh b o rs ’ concerns a bout increa sed traf

fic, Mr. H ill acquired additional property

in order to c onstruct a se cond entr anceto the subdivision t o les sen the burde n on Chaparr al Drive . There afte r, Mr. Hill prese nted a r evised pre liminary plan for the subdivision containing 106 lots on approxi mately 35 acr es. He also submitt ed for approva l the final plan for Phase One co n t ai n ing 34 lots on appr ox imately 10 acr es. The planning c ommissi on’s staff
rec ommended appr oval of both plans subj ec t t o minor technica l corre ctions. The planning commission deferr ed ac tion on t hese plats at its J une 26, 2001 mee ting but re turned to the matter ag ain on J uly

24, 2001. At that meeting , the pl anning commission approve d the revised preliminary plat for the e ntire subdivision and the final plat for Phase One “subjec t to staff re commendations.” At some point, Mr. Hill s o l d t h e C h aparral de velopment to B & B Ente rprises of Wil son County , LL C and Hal B one. I n 2002, B & B Ent erprises submitt ed fina l plans for Phases Tw o and 1 2 Th re e fo r a

pp ro va l. T he plann ing c omm iss ion ’s sta ff re c omm e nd e d a

pp ro va l of

the se plats “ wi th 3
corr ections.” A t its January 22, 2002 meeting , the planning commission denied the re quest for f inal
app ro va l of

Pha se s T wo a ndTh re e , a pp are ntl y be c aus e of

ob je cti ons b y

ne ig hb oring pr op e rty ow ne rs
. Undeter red, B & B Enterprises ag ain broug ht Chaparr al Phases Two and Threeback to the planning commission at its Fe bruary 26, 2002 meeting

. The commission’s staf f conf irmed that the Final Plans for

Phases Two and Three conformed substantially with the preliminary plan appr oved in J uly 2001 and with all applica

ble ordinanc es. The r emainder of the discussion foc used on whe ther B & B Enterprises had complied with two supposed “conditions” to the J uly 2001 approva l of the preliminary

plan and on the sur

rounding property

owner s’ objections t o Phases Two and Three. The 4 plann ing c omm iss ion ’s sta ff state d th a t B & B En te rp ri se s had me t the “ c on dition s” dis c us se d inJuly 2001. Howeve r, various property owner s continued to object to Phases Two and Threebeca use of inc omp a tib ili ty

of thepr op os e d c on str

uc tio n w iththesu rr ou nd ing ne ig hb or ho od , theincr e a se in 5O n Febr u ar y 27, 2002, t h e day fol l owi n g t h e h ea r i n g , t h e M ay or of Le ban on an d an ot h er membe r of t he 6 pl ann i ng comm i s s i on pre pare d a s el f

- s er vi ng “ mem oran dum” for i ncl us i on i n t h e c om mi s s i on’ s f i l e e xpl ai ni ng t hei r vot es for den y i ng f

i nal approval o f

P has es T wo and T hr ee. T hey st at ed ( 1) t hat t he “ cons er vat i on ea s ement / buf fer as pre s ent ed
w a s n o t fa c tua l” a n d (2 ) tha t n o o ff e r w a s m a d e “ to r e c o n figu re lo ts c o n tigu o u s to P o n d e ro sa T ra il fo r m o re c o m p a tib le
s i zi ng
. ”

-3- traff ic, and the possible diminution of the value of their prope rty . The planning comm i ssion eventua lly

succumbe d to the desires of t he neighboring property owner s and declined t o approvethe final plans of Phase s Two and Thr ee by a 5 to 3 vote. The planning commiss i o n d i d not make fi nd ing s o f f

a c t or c on c lus ion s o f l a w, a ndno ne of the ind ivi du a l com mis sio ne rs e xpla ine d th e ba sis fo r the ir vo te du ri ng thec omm iss ion ’s fo rm a l c on sid e ratio n o f this pr oje c t. 6 Following the planning commission’s second disapprova l of the plans for Phases Two a nd Threeof the subdivi sion, B & B Ent erprises filed a petition for common-law writ of c ertiora ri in the Chance ry Court for Wilson C ounty

a s s e r ting that the planning c ommissi on had followe d an unlawf ul proce dure and had acte d arbitra rily and capriciously when it dec lined to approve the plans for Phases Two and Thr ee of

the s ubdivision. The trial court g rante d the petition and, af ter re viewing the re cord of the proc eeding s befor e the planning commission, found that the planning commission had acted arbitra rily and capriciously by declining to a pprove the plans for Phases Two an d T h re e o f t he
su bd ivi sio n. Accordi ngly , th e tria l c ou rt dir e c te d th e plann ing c omm iss ionto a pp ro ve theplans
. The planning commission has appea led.
II. T HE S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW
A common-law writ of ce rtiorari is an extr a o r d in a r y ju d ic ia l remedy

. Robinson v. Traughber , 13 S.W. 3d36 1, 36 4 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 9) ; Fite v. State Bd. of Paroles , 925 S.W .2d 543, 544 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). It is not available as a matter of right, Boyc e v. W illiams , 215 Tenn. 704, 713-14, 38 9 S. W.2 d 2 72 , 2 77 (1 96 5) ; Y ok ley v . S tate , 632 S.W .2d 123, 127 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981), but rather it is addressed to the tria l court’s discr etion. Blackm on v. Tennesse e Bd. of Paroles , 29 S.W .3d 875, 878 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Acc ording ly , decisions t o g rant or deny a common-law writ of ce rtiorari
are revie wed using the fa miliar “abuse of discretion” sta ndard. Hall v. McLesky, 83 S.W .3d 752, 757 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 2) ; Robinson v. Clement , 65 S.W .3d 632, 635 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
Dec isions whether to g rant or de ny a writ of certiorari for the purpose of obtaining a boar d or commission’s rec ord to revie w differ from decisions whether to g rant relief following a re view of the re cord. The scope of review a ffor ded by a common-la w writ of c ertiora ri is ext reme ly

limit ed. Reviewing courts may

g rant re lief only

when the boa

rd or a gen cy h as exceede d its jurisdi ction or
a c te d il le g a lly , f

ra ud ule ntl y , or arb itr ari ly . T e nn . Co deAn n. § 2 7- 8- 10 1 ( 20 00 ); Turner v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles , 993 S.W. 2d78 , 8 0 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 9) ; Daniels v. Traughber , 984 S.W .2d 918, 924 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). They may not (1) inquire into the intrinsic cor rec tness of the lowe r tribunal’s dec ision, Arnold v. T ennesse e Bd. of Paroles , 95 6 S.W. 2d 47 8, 48 0 (T e nn . 1 99 7) ; Po we ll
v
. P a ro le E li g ib il it

y Rev iew Bd. , 879 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994), ( 2) re weig h the evidenc e, W

att s v
. Civ il Se rv
. Bd

. fo r Co lum bia , 606 S.W. 2d 27 4, 27 7 ( Te nn . 1 98 0) ; Hoove r, Inc.-4-

v . M e tro po lit an Bd . o f Zo nin g A

pp e als , 9 24 S.W. 2d90 0, 90 4 (T e nn . Ct. App . 199 6) , or ( 3) su bs titute their judg ment for that of the lower tribuna l, 421 Corp. v. Metropolitan Gov’t , 36 S.W .3d 469, 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
Once a trial c ourt revie ws a local boar d’s or c ommissi on’s re cord, it must make written finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law supporting its decision either to g rant or to deny the re quested relief . Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-111( c) (Supp. 2004). The c ourt’s finding s of fa ct must be based on the pre ponderance of

the evidenc e. Te nn. Code Ann. § 27-9-111( d). Ac cording ly , on appea l, we will review the trial court’ s findings o f fac t using the f amiliar Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d) standard of revie w. Whil e Tenn. R. A pp. P. 13(d) re quires us to defe r to the trial court’s fac tual finding s as long as the e vidence does not preponde rate ag ainst them , we d o n o t ac cord similar de fer enceto a trial court’s c onclusio n s o f l aw. Rather, we c onduct a “ pure de novo ” re view of the trial court’ s conclusions of law , Southern Constructors, Inc. v. Loudon County Bd. of Educ. , 58 S.W .3d 706, 710 Tenn. 2001), and make our own independe nt conclusions reg arding these i s sues. Johnson v. Johnson , 37 S.W. 3d 89 2, 89 4 (T e nn . 200 1); Nutt v. Champion Int' l Corp. , 980 S.W .2d 365, 367 (T e nn . 1 99 8) ; Hicks v . Cox , 978 S.W .2d 544, 547 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
III
. T HE P L ANNI NG C OM M I S S I ON ’ S R E CORD
Be fo re addre ssing the substantive me rits of this appeal, wemust address the planning
c ommiss ion ’s un fo rt

un atein att ent io n t o t he l egal req ui rem ent s re gardi ng its de c isi on -m a kin g pr oc e ss and the pr epar ation of the re cord of its procee dings onc e judicia l re v i ew is sought. The
c omm iss ion ’s ov e rs ig hts ha ve ma de it e xtre me ly dif fi c ult fo r both th e tria l c ou rt

a ndthi s c ou rt

to discharg e our oblig ation to revie w t he decisions reg arding Phases Two and Thre e of the Chaparr al subdivision.
A. Municipal planning c o mmis s io n s c r e ate d u n d e r Tenn. Code Ann. § 13- 4-101(a ) (Supp. 1994) play a piv ota l r ole in the or de rl y

int e g ratio n o f a

c ommun ity ’s so c ia l a nde c on omi c de ve lop me nt w ith its phy sical environment. See Family Golf of Nashville v. M etropolitan Gov’t , 964 S.W .2d 254, 257 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). A s part of the ir planning fu n ct ions, they have the authority

to adopt reg ulations gove rning the deve lopment of s u b d i v i sions within t heir ter ritorial jurisdiction. Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4- 303(a) (1999). In fac t, no subdivision can be construc ted within their territorial jurisdiction without t heir a pproval. Te nn. Code Ann. § 13-4- 302(a) (Supp. 2004). Planning c ommissi ons, like other boar ds and commissions of local g overnme nt, are perf orm in g a q u a s i- ju d ic ia l f u n c ti o n w h e n th e y

r e v ie w a p r o p o s e d u s e o f

a p arti c u la r tr a c t o f rea l property

. Se e Re dd

oc h v . S mi th , 21 4 Te nn
. 21 3, 22 2, 37 9 S. W.2 d 6 41 , 6 45 (1 96 4) ; Laf fe rtyv . Ci ty of W inchester , 46 S.W. 3d 75 2, 75 8 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 0) ; Burson & Simpson Lodge Dev s., Inc. v

. Metropolitan Gov’t , No. 01A01-9805-CH- 00249, 1999 WL 114257, at *2-3 (T enn. Ct. App. Mar. 5, 19 99 ) ( No Te nn . R. Ap p. P. 1 1 a pp lic a tio n f

ile d) . T he ir

fi nd ing s a ndde te rm inatio ns arepu bli c rec ords, Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-4-102 (1999), and they are require d to inc lude in the ir officia l rec ordsSee , e
. g. , H edge pat h v

. Nor t on , 8 3 9 S .W .2 d 4 1 6 , 4 1 7 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ); S ta te e x re l. B ro w n in g -F e rris 7

v . B o a rd o

f C o m m r’ s o

f K n o x C o u n ty , 8 0 6 S .W .2 d 1 8 1 , 1 8 6 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 0 ); Fol ey v
. H am i l t on , 603 S. W

. 2d 151, 1 5 3 (T e n n
. C t. A p p . 1 9 8 0 ); se e a lso O ’L e a ry v . H a ll , N o . 0 3 A 0 1 -9 5 0 7 -C H -0 0 2 3 5 , 1 9 9 6 W L 8 4 8 5 2 , at *1 -2 (T e n n . C t. A p p . F e b . 2 7 , 1 9 9 6 ) (N o T e n n . R . A p p . P . 1 1 a p p lica tio n fi le d ); -5- their re asons for disa

pproving any

proposed subdivision. Tenn. Code Ann. § 13- 4-304(b) (1999). Requiring planning commissions t o include the r easons fo r t h ei r actions in their official re cords promotes compliancewith the law and prote cts ag ainst arbitra ry decisions. It also fac ilitates judicial review of the c ommissi on’s dec isions. S e e H o o v e r v
. M e t ro p o l i ta n B d

. o

f Z o n i n g A p p e als , 924 S.W .2d at 905.
Th e of fi c ia l r e c or d o f a

g ov e rn me nta l bo ard ’s or c omm iss ion ’s a c tions is c us tom ari ly its minut es. The courts have repe atedly observe d that boards and commissions, l ike the planning
c omm iss ionin this c a se , s pe ak o r a c t of fi c ia lly on ly thr ou g h th e ir

min ute s and re c or ds ma de a t du ly called me eting s. Se e Pre ss, In c . v . W as hin gto n Co un ty , 179 Tenn. 435, 439, 167 S.W .2d 329, 330 (1 94 3) ; Carte r Cou nty Bd

. of Ed uc . Co mm ’r

s v . A me ric an Fe d’ n o

f Te ac he rs , 609 S.W .2d 512, 517 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 98 0) ; Stegall v. City of Chatt anooga , 16 Tenn. App. 124, 133, 66 S.W .2d 266, 270 (1932). Ac cording ly , a boar d’s or c ommissi on’s min u t es take c enter stag e whe n courts ar e aske d to r e vie w i ts d e c isi on s. 7
A b oa rd ’s or c omm iss ion ’s min ute s, on c e a pp ro ve d, aretheon ly c omp e te nt e vid e nc e of its of fi c ia l a c tio ns . T he re is a

str on g pr e su mpt ionthat of fi c ia l mi nu te s a

rec or re c t. T hu s, thec ou rt s w ill
no t c on sid e r p aro le e vid e nc e that c on tr a dic ts a bo ard ’s or

c omm iss ion ’s min ute s a nd wi ll d e c lin e to g o behind these minutes in the abse nce of a showing of fr aud or mistake.
When a trial court issues a common-law writ of certiorari in a case like this one , the boar d
or c omm iss ionmus t f

ile thee nti rere c or d o f i ts p ro ceed ing s to e na blethere vie wi ng c ou rt

to determine whether

the petitioner is e ntitled to relief

. W ill is v . Te nn e sse e De

p’ t of Cor r. , 113 S.W .3d 706, 712 (Tenn. 2003) . I n this reg ard, Te nn. Cod e Ann. § 27-9-109(a) ( 2000) re quires that “[i] mmediately

upon the g rant of the writ, the boar d or commission shall cause to be made, c ertified
a ndfo rw ard e d to su c h c ou rt a c omp le te tr a ns c ri pt of the pr oc e e din g s in the c aus e , c on ta ini ng a lso
a ll th e p r o o f s u b m i t t e d b e f o r e t h e b o ar d o r c o m m i s s i o n
. ” T h u s , t h e b o ar d o r c o m m i s s ion wh os e actions ar e being revie wed must file a w ritten transc ript of its proc eeding s. Lewis v. Bedford Bd. of Zon ing Ap

pe als , No. M 2003-00537-COA- R3-CV, 2004 WL 63439, at *5 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2004) (No T enn. R. App. P. 11 application filed) . Tape rec ording s of the board’ s or commission’s proce eding s will not suffice. Haye s v. Metropolitan Gov’t , N o
. 0 1 A 0 1

- 9 1 0 8

- CH

- 0 0 2 9 1 , 1 9 9 2 WL 40194, at *10 (Te nn. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 1992) perm. app. de nied (Tenn. May

26, 1992).
B. This appea l focuses on the planning commission’s a ctions at four me eting s: J une 26, 2001, J uly 24, 2001, J anuary

22, 2002, and F ebrua

ry 26, 2002. To comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-2- 10 9( a ), thec omm iss ionsh ou ld h a ve fi led wi th the c ou rt tr a ns c ri pts of

e a c h o f the se pr oc e e din g s. Reg rettably , the commi ssion failed to discha rg e its statutory

obligation. I t did not file transcripts ofP er haps t he com mi s s i on as s umed t hat i t was not r equi r ed t o f i l e t r ans cr i pt s of i t s cons i dera t i on of t he C hapar r al 8 sub d i visi o n b ec au se it f i l ed t he au d i o rec o rd i ng s o f t he se p ro ce ed i ng s. T his assum p t i o n is m i st ak en fo r t w o rea so ns. F i rst , w e h av e a lr e a d y p o i nted o ut t ha t au d i o rec o rd i ng s ca nn o t b e sub st i t uted fo r t he st atuto ril y req uired t ran scrip t s. Second, l ar ge po r t i ons of t hes e t r ans cr i pt s ar e u ni nt el l i gi bl e.

H a d a n y m e m b e r o f t h e c o m m issio n d e c id e d tha t t h e m inu te s d id no t co n ta in a full, a c c u ra te , an d c o m p le te 9

acc ount of

t he com mi s s i on’ s ac t i ons on Febr uar y 26, 200 2, he or s he s houl d hav e su gg es t ed or re ques t ed t hat t he mi nu t es o f th e F e b ru a ry 2 6 , 20 0 2 m eet i ng be co rr ect ed

. T he ent i re com m i ss i o n t hen wo ul d have had an op p o rt uni t y , on t he
r ec or d a n d i n a n ope n me et i n g , t o de t er mi n e wh et h er i t s of f i ci al mi n u t es s h ou l d be c h an g ed.
-6- the portions of its June 26, 2001, J uly 24, 2001, and January

22, 2002 proce eding s dealing with the Chaparr al subdivision. W hile the re cord c ontains two transcrip t s of the F ebrua ry 26, 2002 proce eding s , n either of

these transcripts have been c ertified by the commission or its st aff as r e p r e s e n t i n g a

f u l l , a c c u r a t e , a n d c o m p l e t e a c c o u n to f w h a ttr a n s p i r e d d u r i n g t h o s e h e ar i n g s
. In
a dd iti on , th e tr a ns c ri pts areinc on sis te nt, a ndon e tr a ns c ri pt c on ta ins ma ny mate ri a l om iss ion s. 8 To compound the proble m, the minutes of the four me eting s provided by the planning
c omm iss ion do no t c omp ly wi th T e nn . Co de An n. § 1 3- 4- 30 4( b) . T he c omm iss ionde c lin e d to approve Phases Two and Thre e of the Chaparr al subdivision at its J anuary 22, 2002 and F ebrua

ry 26, 2002 meeting s. Whi le the minutes of these meeting s rec ord the fac t that the commission did not fi na lly app ro ve Pha se s Two a ndTh re e , th e re a so ns fo r the c omm iss ion ’s a c tio n a rec on sp ic uo us ly absent fr om the minutes.
On Fe bruary

27, 2002, the day

following the commission’s meeting , two commission
me mbe rs a tte mpt e d to c ur e thi s o ve rs ig ht b y pr e pa ri ng a ndsig nin g a

“ me mor a nd um” pu rp ortin g to expla i n t h e re asons for the commission’s action on Fe bruary 26, 2002. They

instructed the commission’s staff to provide c opies of the memorandum to the “appr opriate parties” and to include it i n th e c omm iss ion ’s re c or d. Th is me mor a nd um is a null ity

. De sp ite thefa c t th a t it is i nc lud e d in the planning commission’s f iles, it is not an authoritative ref lection of the c ommissi on’s ac tions at the Fe bruar

y 26, 2002 meeting

. There fore , it c annot be use d to supplement the minutes which ar e the offic ial rec ords of the c ommissi on’s ac tions on Februa ry 26, 2002. 9

Th e c omm iss ionha d the ob lig a tio n to pr ov ide bo th thetria l c ou rt a ndthi s c ou rt

no t on ly wi th of fic ia l mi nu te s me e tin g themin imu m st a tut ory re qu ir e me nts bu t a lso wi th a re c or d o f i ts pr oc e e din g s th a t c on ta ine d a fu ll, a c c ur a te , a nd c omp le te a c c ou nt of wh a t tr a ns pir e d w ithre g ardto the i s s u es being prese nted to the courts for re view. It must, t here fore , bear the re sponsibili ty

and
su ffer t he co ns equ ences of it s over si ghts . Un der t he fa cts of t hi s cas e, i t w ou ld be u nfai r t o B & B E n t erp ri s es t o gi v e t h e p l an n i n g co m m i s s i o n an o p p o rt u n i t y t o co rr ec tt h e m i n u t es o f i t s m ee t i n gs or to prepa

re transcripts of its proce eding s. The minutes of the meeting s at issue in this case we re duly approve d by

the planning commission and are , ther ef o re, the officia l rec ords of the
c omm iss ion ’s a c tio ns wi th r e g ardto the iss ue s bei ng raise d o n a pp e a l. A c c or din g ly , w e wi ll b a se ou r d e c isi on in this c a se on there c or d th a t th e plann ing c omm iss ionha s p ro vid e d u s.-7- IV. T HE B A SI S FOR TH E P L ANNI NG C OM M I S S I ON ’ S D EN IAL O F P H A SES T W O AN D T HR EE OF THE C HA PAR R A L S UB DI VI S I ON The planning commission’s principal arg ument on this a ppeal is that the trial court e rre d by determ i n i n g t h at the commission acted a rbitrarily and ca priciously when it dec lined to approve Pha se s Two a nd Th re e of the Cha pa rr a l Subd ivi sio n. Th e y

ins ist that th e ir de nia l w a s a

pp ro priate be c aus e B & B En te rp ri se s f a ile d to de mon str a te that it ha d c omp lie d w ithtw o “ c on dit ion s” purportedly

place d on the furthe r d ev el o pment of Chapar ral at the commission’s J uly 24, 2001 hearing. T his arg ument is undermined by the inesca

pable f act that the officia l r ecor d of the July24, 20 0 1 me e ti n g c o n tain s n o in d ic a ti o n th a t th e p lan n in g c o mm is s io n c o n d it io n e d it s approval of Phases Two a nd Threeof the Chapa rra l subdivisi on on anything other than complying w ith its staff’ s technical rec ommendations reg arding the plats that had be en submitted. The planning commission ins ists that it conditioned its July 24, 2001 approva l of the entire Chaparr al subdivision on the developer ’s agr eeme nt to include a conservation easeme nt along the portions of Phases Two and Threeand to enlar g e the lots contig uous to Ponderosa Trail. However , the minutes of the Jul y

24, 2001 belie this claim. The minutes of the July24, 2001 meeting state:
Ric kGre g ory

prese nted the re vised preliminary plat, which wa s pr e vio us ly

app ro ve d a ndis p re se nte d a gainto b e app ro ve d a s a revised pr eliminary

showing the major diff

ere nce of a roa d extended. The floor was ope ned to questions from the audience and the boa rd. Bill Durham asked Jere McCulloch, t h e spokesman for Chaparr al Subdivis ion, if the new r oad would be a construc t i o n entra nce and exit for the de velopment of t h e property . J ere McCulloch’s answe r was affirmative, and also stated the f irst phase include d a roa dway from Maple Hill Road all the way back into the property to ensure a timely completion of the proje ct. J erry Mang rum thanked the B oard for looking out for the be st interest of the c o m m u nity . After discussion on motion by Ander son, seconde d by Cook, all voting ay e, preliminary

plat was a

pproved.
Wit h reg ard to Phase O ne of the projec t, the commission’s minut es re flec t simpl y that “[p] lat was prese nte d

. St a f

f r e a d r e c o mm e n d a ti o n s
. A f ter d is c u s s io n o n mo ti o n b y D u rh a m, s e c o n d e d by Ander son, all voting ay e, plat wa s approve d subject to staff r ecommendations.”
The written staff re commendations for the J uly 24, 2 0 01 meeting , both for the r evised preliminary

plat for the e ntire projec t and the fina l pl at for Phase One, do not mention either a conservation ease ment or incre asing the s ize of t he lot s along Ponderosa Tr ail. Wit h reg ard to the entire subdivision, the staff’ s rec ommendations are limit ed to:

Preliminary plat needs: identify all adjac ent prope rty

owner s (north, south & e ast), si ze draina g e pipes, sewe r pum p station will be in frontT he reco rd, such as i t i s, m akes cl ear t hat co m m uni t y op p o si t i o n was t h e s o le b asi s fo r t he p l anni ng 10 commi s s i on ’ s de ci s i on t o dec l i n e t o appr ov e Pha s es T wo an d T h r ee
. H owe v er , commun i t y oppos i t i on doe s n ot pr ov i de
a n a p p ro p ria te b a sis fo r w ithh o ld ing a p p ro v a l o f a p ro p o se d d e v e lo p m e n t th a t m e e ts a ll a p p lica b le re q u ire m e n ts. In th is
ca s e, t h e pl an n i n g commi s s i on ’ s s t af f i n for med t h e commi s s i on t h at Pha s es T wo an d T h r ee met al l appl i ca bl e s u bdi v i s i on requir em ent s and were co nsi st ent wi t h t he p rel i m i nary plat s earl i er app roved by t he co m m i ss i o n. -8- y ard s?, co rr e c t lo catio n ma p, su bd ivi sio n s ig n? – no te . Su bje c t to En g ine e ri ng , Cr os s Co nn e c tio n, F i r eD e p a r tme nt r e qu ir e me nts . With
corr ections, rec om m end app roval

. Withre g ardto P ha se On e , th e sta ff ’s re c omm e nd a tio ns we rea s f oll ow s: Plat needs: pond ref

ere nce n o t e 1 3 is incorre ct, show all adja cent property owner s, west dimensions 40’ (lot 30) and 251.48 (lot 28) a re incorre ct, setbac k lines to acc ommodate houses fa cing Chaparr al Dr. on lots 13, 18, 30 & 31? L ots 16, 17, 18 and 23 have s am e setback p r o b l e m s o n f

i n a l a s o n p r e l i m i n ar y. Was the re ag ree ment that lots 13, 18, 31 would front C h ap ar ral Drive? Was the setback on lot 30 to b e m o ved we st to provide a g re a te r s e tba c k fr om Cha

pa rr a l Drive ? Sub

je c t to En g ine e ri ng , Cr os s Con ne c tion, F ir e De pa

rt me nt r e qu ir e me nts . With c or re c tio ns , rec om m end app roval

. Ap pr oximate ly

se ve nty -f ivey e ars a g o, thi s c ou rt

c on sid e re d a

c a se striki ng ly

sim ila r t o th is
one. I n it, a neig hbor of a residential subdivision in Memphis filed suit complaining that the develope r of the subdivision was not abiding by an allege d ag ree ment with the planning commission and the ne ighboring pr operty owner s reg arding a 25-f o o t s et b ack line on a portion of the development and the beautification of ce rtain boundaries of the subdivision. The develope r denie d that it had made any

ag ree ments reg arding the setbac k line or beautificati o n
. Af t er revie wing the minutes of the planning commi ssion’s meeting s, this court sided with the develope r bec ause “ the minutes of the meeting of the City Planning Commission at which the plat and plan of t he propose d subdivision was approved, doe s not make any mention or ref

ere nce to any

such alleg ed ag ree ment.” Le nz i v . Co lbe rg , 13 Tenn. App. 535, 542 ( 1931).
I n this case, a s in Le nz i v . Co lbe rg , th e of fi c ia l mi nu te s o f the plann ing c omm iss ion ’s July 2 4 , 2 0 0 1 me e ti n g ma

k e n o me n ti o n o r r e f

e r e n c e to a c o n s e r v a ti o n e a s e me n t o r to in c r e a s in g th e s iz e of a ny of thelot s in the su bd ivi sio n. Ac c or din g ly , the re is no ev ide nc e that B & B En te rp ri se s o r i ts prede cessor

ag reed t o m ak e these chang es or that the c ommissi on conditioned its approval of the Chaparr al subdivision on these c h an g es being made. Without evidence of these a g ree ments, we ha ve no a lte rn a tiv e oth e r than to con c lud e that th e plann ing c omm iss iona c te d a rb itr ari ly a ndc apric iou sly on Fe bruary

26, 2002, when it denied f inal appro v al o f P h ases Tw o and Thre e of the subdivision purportedly

for f ailure to c omply

with earlier imposed condit i o n s o n the deve lopment of the p r o p e rt y. 10-9-

Remanding these proc eeding s back to the pla nning c ommissi on would serve no prac tical pu rp os e a ndwo uldc aus e a dd iti on al hard sh ip o n B & B En te rp ri se s. We h a ve e sta bli sh e d, a s a matter of law, that there are no leg ally enfor cea ble conditions on Phases Two and Thr ee r eg arding
a c on se rv a tio n e a se me nt o r i nc re a sin g thesize of c e rt a in l ots . Fu rt her hear ing s c a nn ot a lte r this
c on c lus ion . In a dd iti on , the plann ing c omm iss ion ’s sta ff ha s a lr e a dy c on c lud e d that th e fi na l pl a ts of Phases Two and Threecomply substantially

with the plat that was approved on J uly 24, 2001 and with all other applica

ble subdivision requirements. Ac cording ly , beca use the planning commission has no leg al or fac tual basis for declining to approve Phases Two and Three, it has no opti on other than to fo llo w the la w andapp ro ve the se plats.
V.
We affirm the judgme nt directing the planning c o m m i s s i o n to approve the final plats of Phases Two a nd Threeof the Chapa rra l subdivision and rema nd the ca se to the trial court for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. We tax the costs of this appea l to the Cit y of L ebanon Planning Commission.

_______________________________ WILL I AM C. K OC H, JR., P. J., M. S.