### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Ma y 3, 200 5 S es sio n JOHN M OOR E ET AL 

### . v. MET ROPOLI TAN BOARD OF Z ONI NG AP PE ALS ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 03-1011-I ( II) Carol L. Mc Coy, Chancellor

No. M2004- 00353-COA-R 3-CV- F iled Fe bruary 3, 2006

This appea l involves a

dispute betwee n the deve lopers of the site of a f ormer c ommercia l laundry a ndd ry c l e a n i n g p l a n tl o c a t e di n a r e s i d e n t i a l n e i g h b o rh o o da n da g r o u p o f n e i g h b o r i n g r e s i de nts a ndpr op e rty

ow ne rs . F oll ow ing tw o p ub lic he ari ng s, theMe trop oli ta n B oa rdof Z on ing Ap pe a ls approve d a mix ed-use developme n t t h at i ncluded r enovating two of the e x isting structure s and constructing a new structure containing underg round par king an d ad ditional retail and re sidential space . The ne ighboring pr operty owner s filed a petition f or a common-la w writ of c ertiora ri and a writ of super sedea s in the Chance ry Court for Da vidson Countychalleng ing the Boa rd’s de cision. Following a re v i ew o f the re cord of the B oard’ s proce eding s, the trial court upheld the B oard’ s decision, and the property owner s appealed. We have determined that the B oard f ollowed the prope r proce dures and did not act ar bitrarily , and that its decision is supported by materia l evidence

. 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., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., joined. P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J

. , n o tp ar t i ci p at i n g.
J oseph Howell J ohnston, Nashville, Tennessee, for the a ppellants, J ohn Moore, Gloria McKissac k, Arvanzena Clardy , and Juanita Drake

. Th oma s V . Wh ite , N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or theapp e lle e , V ill a

Way , L L C.
J. B ro ok s F ox, N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or theapp e lle e , M e tr op oli ta n B oa rdof Z on ing Ap pe a ls.
OP IN ION
I.
I n 1931, Whit e Way

Cleaner s opened a

commerc ial laundry

and d ry cl ea n i n g plant at the int e rs e c tio n o f E dg e hil l A ve nu e a ndVi lla Pla c e in the Ed g e hil l se c tio n of Na sh vil le

. Whe n th e City of Na shville enac ted its first zoning ordinanc e two y ear s later in 1933, the plant was zoned industrial even thoug h the surrounding properties werezoned re s i d enti al. All the prope rty was zonedA n R S 5 d istric t is d e sig n e d fo r hig h e r i n te n sity sin g le -fa m ily d e v e lo p m e n t. It sh o u ld h a v e g o o d a c c e s s to 1 ei t her ar t er i al or col l ect or s t r ee t s. M etro po l i t an G ov’ t of N as hv i l l e & D avi dson C ount y , T enn es s ee C od e § 17. 08. 020( B ) ( 1) ( c) ( 1998) ( M et r o. Code)

. T h e l ot s i ze s i n a n RS5 di s t r i ct ma y be as s mal l as 5, 000 s qu ar e fee t

. M et r o. C o d e § 1 7 .0 8 .0 1 0 (B )( 1 )( h ).

T h e s o r ts o f

b usinesse s co ntem p l ated fo r t he d ev elo p m en t i nc l ud ed b arb er sho p s, na i l salo ns, ba nk s, f resh 2 p ro d uc e m ark ets, sm all p ro fessio na l he alt hc are o f f i ce s, co f fee sho p s, si t d o w n rest au ran t s, art ga l l eries, anti q ue sho p s, f l o w er sho p s, sho e re p air sho p s, t ail o r o r alt era t i o n sho p s, gif t sho p s, b o o k store s, an d ch i l d ca re o r eld erly ca re c en t ers.
T w o o f the m o st a c tive g ro u p s w e re the O rg a n iz e d N e igh b o rs o f E d g e h ill (O .N .E .) re p re se n ting the re sid e n ts 3

o f t he p ub l i c ho usi ng i n E d gehi l l and V i l l a- W ed ge So ut h N ei ghb o rhoo d G roup , Inc. represent i ng t he p rop ert y ow ners and ot her r es i dent s i n t he ar ea. -2- residential in the 1960s; howe ver, White Way Cleaner s continued to operate its business as a nonconforming use . The prope rty is now zoned RS 5. 1
The orig inal owner sold the laundry and dry cleaning business in 1999, b u t re t ained owner ship of t he real property

. I n 2002, the owners of t he laundry and dry cleaning busine ss decided t o b u i l d a new plant beca use it was not fe asible to upg radeand re novate the old build i n g. Acc ording ly , in May

2002, the laundry

operations moved to another location, and the old plant wa s left empty . At this point , the owner of the prope rty beg an conside ring various alternatives to deve lop it. The prope rty

owner first dec ided to demolish the old plant and shop but later abandone d the ide a wh e n h e enco un ter e d r e sis ta nc e fr om p ub lic of fi c ia ls andoth e r c ommun ity me mbe rs
. Ac c or din g ly , th e ow ne r, in c on jun c tio n w ithoth e r p artne rs , p re pa re d a pl an fo r a

mixe d- us e de ve lop me nt that wo uld pr e se rv e the his toric plant a nd sh op a nd wo uld a da pt the m f or re sid e nti a l, r e t a i l , a n d c o m m e r c i a l u s e
. T h e p l a n a l s o c a l l e df o r t h e c o n s tru c t i o n o f

a t h r e e
- s t o ry p ark i n g f

a c i l i t y. Two stories of the g ara g e would be be low g round, and the third story would contain additio nal residential or

retail space.
As e n v is io n e db y

th e d e v e lo p e r s , th e p r o

je c t w o u ldb e c o n s is te n t w ith th e c h ar a c te r o f the su rr ou nd ing ne ig hb or

ho od

. Th e ir plans fo r the re ta il a nd c omm e rc ia l sp a c e inc lud e d s ma ll l oc a lly owned stores rather

than big box chain de velopments. They also contemplate d external amenities 2
su c h a s si de wa lks , land sc apin g , d e c or a tiv e fi xtur e s, pe de stria n bulb s, dis c re te sig na g e , an d a de qu a te security lighting at night. The develope rs planned to limit the hours of operation f or the businesses in order to minimiz e disruption to the neig hborhood.
The de veloper s share d their plans with the are a prope rty owner s and re sidents and eng ag ed in l e ng thy dis c us sio ns wi th se ve ral com mun ity g ro up s. Th e se g ro up s a ndoth e r i nd ivi du a l r e sid e nts 3 and prope rty

owner s did not speak with a sing le voice. Whi le t here was a consensus that the ex isting plan t a n d s to r e b u il d in g s s h o u ld b e p r e s e r v e d r a th e r th a n d e mo li s h e d , th e r e w a s li tt leag ree ment reg arding the other de tails of the deve lopment. I n g ener al terms, the neig hborhood g roups stated: (1 ) that th e y

op po se d e nla

rg ing the e xistin g bu ild ing s; (2 ) tha t th e y pr e fe rr e d a s mu c h r e sid e nti a l us eT he am o unt of space invol ved in t he p roject was red uced fr o m 6 6 , 3 0 0 sq uare feet to 6 4 , 8 0 0 s q uare f eet

. T he 4

e x isting b u ild ing s c o n ta ine d 5 6 ,0 0 0 sq u a re fee t o f sp a c e
.

M etro

. C o d e § 1 7 .40 .65 0 (C )(3 )(b ) st ates: 5

T h e n on con for mi n g u s e of a bu i l di n g de s i g n ed an d c on s t r u ct ed for n on r es i den t i al a ct i v i t i es ma y be changed t o ano t her nonco nfo rming use upo n a de t erm i nat i o n by t he b o ard o f zo ni ng ap p eal s t hat t he
new no nco nfo rm ing u se w i l l be m o re com p at i b l e wi t h s urr o und i ng l and us es t han t he exi st i ng nonconf ormi ng us e.
T he el even co nd i t i o ns i m p o sed by t he B o ard we re: (1) pre- and po st

- b l ast i ng s urvey s; (2) l i m i t at i o ns o n t he 6 ho urs o f b l asti ng ; (3 ) l i m i t ati o ns o n t he o p era t i ng ho urs o f restau ran t s an d retail estab l i shm en t s; (4 ) a p ro hib i t i o n a ga i nst o ff -p re m ise s liq u o r sa le s; (5 ) q u a rte rly m e e ting s w ith c o m m u n ity g ro u p s d u rin g the c o n stru c tio n ; (6 ) p ro v id ing re sid e n ts (c o n tinu e d ...) -3- as possi b l e; and (3) that they opposed the c onstruction of the pa rking fac ilitybeca

use they fea red environmenta l problems, blasting damag e, and inc rea sed traf fic c ong estion.
After attempting to g ain conse nsus for appr ox imately ei gh t een months, t he deve lopers decide d to proce ed with their plans. One of their f irst reg ulatory

stops was the Metropolitan B oard of Z oning A ppeals. The Boa rd’s a pproval of th e p ro

ject wa s nece ssary

beca use the de veloper s plann e d to c hang e the us e of the pr op e rty fr om on e no nc on fo rm ing us e to a no the r andbe c aus e the ir plan f or thepa rking str uc tur e wo uldre qu ir e a

va ri a nc e in the re ar y ardre qu ir e me nts

. The B oard he ld its first public hearing r eg arding the proposed de velopment on Dec ember 5, 2002. After

hearing le ng thy

prese ntations by

the deve lopers, neighbor s who s poke both in favor of a nda g a ins t t he propos e d d e ve lop me nt, a ndtheme mbe r o f the Me tr op oli ta n Co un c il i n w ho se district the development wa s located, the Boa rd voted unanimouslyto def er acting on the development to g ive the deve lopers and the residents another opportunity to rea ch a c onsensus reg arding the deve lopment.
The B oard c onsidered the projec t ag ain at its Fe brua ry 6, 2003 meeting . The de veloper s state d th a t th e pa

rtie s h a d c on tin ue d to me e t a nd that the y ha d a lte re d thesc op e of the ir plans a s a result of these meetings. They stated t hat t hey had reduce d the s ize of t he project and that they now planned to add only

8,800 square fee t of new spa ce. They also pointed out that they planned to add 4 46 new pa

rking space s and that t he development now i ncluded a total of 182 parking space s. Are a re sid e nts a g a in v oic e d o pp os it io n to the de ve lop me nt. Som e pr e fe rr e d c on str uc tin g sin g le famil y homes, others opposed the construction of the parkin g g ara g e, and still others insisted that the development wa s “too big ” and “ too busy .”
At the conc lusion of the public comments, the B oard de termined u n animously , in acc ordanc e wi th M e tr o. Cod e § 1 7. 40 .6 50 (C )( 3) (b ) ( 20 05 ), that th e pr op os e d mi xed -u se de ve lop me nt w ou ld 5 be more compatible with the surr ounding land uses than a c ommercia l l au n d ry and dry cleaning plant. I n addition, the Boa rd unanimously

approve d the parking g ara g e and a dding 8,800 squa re f eet to the e xistin g str

uc tur e s. Th e B oa

rd a lso pla c e d c on dition s o n th e de ve lop me nt d e sig ne d to mit ig a te theimp a c t of

thec on str

uc tio n andthede ve lop me nt o n th e su rr ou nd ing pr op e rtie s. 6(

. . . con t i n u ed) 6 wi t h a co nt act pe rs o n fo r com p l ai nt s; (7) al l o cat i ng no l ess t han 3 0 % of t he space t o res i d ent i al us e; (8) al l o cat i ng no m o re t han 1 3 % of t he space t o res t aurant use; (9) co nst ruct i ng a wro ught i ron f ence al o ng t he al l ey; (10 ) const ruct i ng an A 4 l an d sca p e b uff

er a l o ng t he all ey; an d (1 1 ) ho no ring p rev i o us ag ree m en t s wit h the n eigh b o rs.
In t he co nt ext o f

p roce ed i ngs i nvo l vi ng a c o m m o n- l aw wri t of cert i o rari , i l l egal , arbi t rary , or f raudulent act i o ns 7 i n cl u de: ( 1) t h e f ai l u r e t o fol l ow t h e mi n i mu m s t an dar ds of du e pr oce s s ; ( 2) t h e mi s r epr es en t at i on or mi s appl i ca t i on of l eg al st an d ard s; (3 ) b asing a d ec i si o n on ult erio r m o t i ve s; an d (4 ) vio l ati ng ap p l i ca b l e c o nsti t uti o na l st an d ard s. H o o ve r, In c . v. M e tro . B d . o

f Z o n in g A p p e a ls , 92 4 S.W

. 2 d 90 0 , 90 5 (T enn. C t

. A p p
. 19 9 6 ). -4- Th e de ve lop e rs ’ r e qu e st f or a se tba c k v ari a nc e a lon g thea lle y wa s n ot a s su c c e ssf

ul. Whil e the B oard vote d 3 to 2 in f avor of the re quest, the B oard’ s rules re quire four aff irmative votes for

the approva l of a re quest for a variance. The Boar d considere d the re quest for a variance at its nex t two me e tin g s, bu t no mem be r d e sir e d to c hang e his or he r v ote . A c c or din g ly , th e de ve lop e rs ’ r e qu e st for a setbac k variance w as dee med denied.
Fou r property

owner s filed a pe tition for a common-law writ of ce rtiorari and a writ of superse deas in the Chanc ery Court for Da vidson Countychalleng ing the Boa rd’ s ap p roval of the chang e in the natur e and size of the nonc onforming use. They asserted: (1) th at the B oard ha d employ ed an unla wful proc edure by failing to make spec ific finding s of fa ct; (2) that the B oard a cted arbitra rily by failing to re quire the de veloper s to remediate the tox ic contaminants in the g round water beneath the p roperty ; and (3) that the rec ord lac ked material evidenc e esta blishing the proje ct’s compliance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 13- 7-208(c ) (Supp. 2005) and Metro. Code § 17.40.650. The tri al co u rtd ec l i n ed t o i s s u e awr i to f s u p er s ed ea s an d , af t erex am i n i n g t h e re co rd o f t h e p ro ce ed i n gs be fo retheB oa

rd , u ph e ld the B oa

rd ’s de c isi on . T he pr op e rty ow ne rs pe rf

e c te d th is a

pp e a l.
II. T HE S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW The prope r vehic le for se eking judicial revie w of a decisi o n by

a loca l board of zoning appeals is a petition f

or a common-law writ of certiorari. Mc Cal le n v . Ci ty of M e mp his , 786 S.W .2d 63 3, 63 9 ( Te nn . 1 99 0) ; Ho ov e r, In c . v . M e tro . B d. of Z

on ing Ap pe als , 955 S.W. 2d 52 , 54 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 1997). This writ permits qui te limited judicial review. W ill is v. T enn . D e p’ t of Cor r. , 113 S.W. 3d70 6, 71 2 (T e nn . 2 00 3) ; Powell v. Parole Eligibilit y Re view Bd. , 879 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn. Ct. A p p
. 1 9 9 4 )

. T h e s c o p e o f r e v i e w g o e s n o f u rt h e r t h a n d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r t h e e n tit ywh os e d e c i s i o n i s b e i n g r e v i e w e de x c e e d e di t s j u r i s d i c t i o n , f o l l o w e d a n u n l a w f

u l p r o c e d u r e , a c t e di l l e g a l l y, arbitra rily , or fr aud u l en t l y , or ac ted without material e vidence to support its decision. Fallin v. 7 Kno x Cou ntyBd

. o f Co mm ’r

s , 6 56 S .W .2 d 33 8, 34 2- 43 (T e nn . 1 98 3) ; Hu tc he rso n v . La ud e rd ale Co un ty Bd

. of

Zon ing Ap

pe als , 1 21 S.W. 3d37 2, 37 5 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 3) ; 4 2 1 Co r p . v . M e tr o. Gov’ t , 36 S.W .3d 469, 474 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000).
J udicial re view under

a common-la w writ of c ertiora ri is limi ted to the re cord ma de bef ore the boar d or ag ency

unless t h e co urt has permitted the introduction of additional evidenc e on the issue of whe ther the boa

rd or a g ency

excee d ed i t s jurisdiction or acte d illegally , capriciously , or arbitra rily

. Cooper v. W

illiamson C ounty Bd. of Educ. , 746 S.W. 2d 17 6, 17 9 ( Te nn . 1 98 7) ; DavisonW a tts v . C iv il S e rv . B d . f o r C o lu m b ia , 6 0 6 S .W .2 d 2 7 4 , 2 7 7 (T e n n . 1 9 8 0 ); C ase v. Shel by C ou nt y Ci vi l Ser v. 8 M er i t Bd. , 9 8 S .W .3 d 1 6 7 , 1 7 2 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); H o o v e r, In c . v. M e tro . B d . o f Z o n in g A p p e a ls , 924 S. W

. 2d at 904.

M cCo r d v. N ashvi l l e, C

. & St

. L. R y. , 1 8 7 T e n n
. 2 7 7 , 2 9 4 , 2 1 3 S .W .2 d 1 9 6 , 2 0 4 (1 9 4 8 ); L itt le s v . C a m p b e ll ,

9 9 7 S .W .3 d 5 6 8 , 5 7 1 (T e n n . C t. A p p . 2 0 0 2 ); H al l v. M cLes ky , 83 S. W

. 3d 752, 757 ( T en n
. Ct

. App. 2001)

4 2 1 C o rp. v. M et ro. G o v’t , 3 6 S .W .3 d a t 4 7 4 ; W h i t t em o re v. B rentwo o d P l a n n i n g C o m m ’n , 835 S. W

. 2d 11, 10 1 5 (T enn. C t

. A p p
. 19 9 2 ). -5- v . Ca rr , 6 5 9 S .W.2d 361, 363 (Tenn. 1983). Review ing c ourts will not reweig h the evidenc e, 8 examine the intrinsic correct ness of the de cision being revie wed, or substitute their judgme nt for 9 that of theloc a l of

fi c ia ls. 10
Be cause a c ommon-law writ of c ertiora ri is an extraordinary

judicial reme dy , Robinson v. Traughber , 13 S.W .3d 361, 364 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999), it is not available as a matter of right, Boyc e v. W illiams , 2 15 Te nn
. 70 4, 71 3- 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. 19 8 1 ). Decisions either to g rant or to de ny the writ ar e addr essed to the tria l court’s discretion. Blackm on v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles , 29 S.W .3d 875, 878 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). Acc ording ly , the courts review t h es e decisions using the familiar “abuse of discre tion” standard. Un de r this stand ard , a re vie wi ng c ou rt sh ou ld not re ve rs e a tria l c ou rt ’s dis c re tio na ry de c isi on un le ss it applies an incorr ect leg al standar d, rea ches a decision that is i l l o gi ca l , b ases its decision on a clea rly err oneous asse ssment of the evide nce, or employ s rea soning that cause s an injustice to the complaining party

. Pe rryv . P e rry , 1 14 S.W. 3d46 5, 46 7 ( Te nn . 2 00 3) ; Clinard v. Blackwood , 46 S.W. 3d17 7, 18 2 ( Te nn . 2 00 1) ; Ove rstreet v. Shoney’s, I nc. , 4 S. W

. 3 d 6 94, 709 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999).
III . T HE B OARD ’ S D UT Y T O P R EP A R E F IND ING S OF F A C T R E GARDI NG C OM PATI BI LI TY
Th e re sid e nts fi rs t a sse rt that the B oa rd fo llo we d a n un la wf

ul pr oc e du re be c aus e it faile d to m ak e a“d et ac h ed fi n d i n g o f f ac td o v et ai l ed t o t h e re co rd

. ” T h ey ar gu e t h at t h e ab s en ce o f f i n d i n gs of fact deprives them of due process be causeit prevents meaningf ul appellate r eview of

the B oard’ s decision. W e have determined that the Board was not require d to make findings of f act with re g ard to its c on c lus ion pu rs uant to Me tr o. Cod e § 17 .4 0. 65 0( C) (3 )( b) that the pr op os ed m ixed -u se development would be more compatible with the surrounding land uses than a commerc ial laundry and dry cleaning plant.
We a g re e wi th the re sid e nts ’ as se rtion that f ind ing s o f f

a c t arehe lpf

ul andimp orta nt. I n b oth administrative and judicial pr ocee dings, findings of fac t promote an understanding of the ba sis for the dec ision. They

also help to sha

rpen the focus of issues raised on appeal. See B & B Enters. of W ilson County, LLC

v. City of Lebanon , No. M 2003-00267-COA- R3-CV, 2004 WL 2916141, at *3 (Tenn. Ct. App. De c. 16, 2004) ( No Tenn. R. App. P

. 1 1 ap p l i ca tion filed). B ut as helpful as finding s of fa ct might be in an adminis trative procee ding, a dminist rative bodie s such as the B oard arenot require d to ma

ke specific finding s of fac t unle ss a statute or ordinanc e require s them. W eave rO ne o f t he B o ard m em b ers , R

. C l aybo urne P et ri e, Jr. , e xp l ai ned : “T he t est is reall y c o m p at i b i l i t y
. . . . [T ]he 11
te st is, i s the ne w us e m o re c o m p a tib le w ith the n e igh b o rh o o d th a t th e o ld u se th a t’s g o ing a w a y. In o the r w o rd s, in this
c a se , i s re sta u ra n t, re ta il, o ff ic e m o re c o m p a tib le tha n the lau n d ry fa c ili ty.”

-6- v . Kn ox Cou ntyBd

. o f Zo nin g A

pp e als , 122 S.W .3d 781, 785 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003). Me tro. Code § 17.40.650 does not require the Board to make f indings of f

act whe n it is called upon to determine whether a propose d nonconforming use will be more c ompatibl e wi t h surrounding land uses than the exist ing nonc onforming use. The re sidents insist , howe v er , t h at the abse nce of finding s of fa ct in this case, e ven if not require d by statute or ordinanc e, deprived them of due proce ss because it impairs appellate revie w of theB oa rd ’s c omp a ti bi lity

de c isi on . T his is n ot the c a se he re . A ll p artie s kne w that th e sin g le most pivot al issue in this proce eding was whe ther the pr oposed deve lopment was more c onsistent with the surrounding land uses than the old laundry and dry cleaning plant. No one who te stified 11
a t th e B oa

rd ’s tw o h e a

ri ng s to ok th e po si ti on that th e pr op os e d mi xed -u se de ve lop me nt w a s le ss c omp a tib le wi th the su rr ou nd ing are a than th e laun dry

a nd dry c le a nin g plant h a d b e e n. I n f a c t, a ll ag ree d that the proposed development was more c ompatible. The disag ree ment stemmed from the re sid e nts ’ i ns ist e nc e on a

de ve lop me nt that w ou ld b e , at le a st i n th e ir op ini on , e ve n mo rec omp a tib le than the one pr oposed. Metro. Code § 17.40.650(C)( 3)(b) does not requir e the B oard to de termi ne whe ther a proposed de velopment is the most compatible development possible. Rather , it require s the Boa rd to determine w h et h er t h e p roposed development is more compatible than the exist ing one . The evidenc e in this case supports only one conclusion – that the proposed mixed-use deve lopment was mo r e c o mp a ti b le w ith th e s u rr o u n d in g lan d u s e s th a n th e o ld la u n d ry a n d d ry c le a n ing plant had been. T here fore , our ability to review the evidentiary support for the B oard’ s conclusion has not been impair ed by

the fa ct that the B oard did not mak e fi n d ings of fac t supporting its conc lusion reg arding the compatibility of the propose d development.

IV. T HE B OARD ’ S E R R O N EO U S C I T AT I ON T O M E T RO . C OD E § 17.40.660
The re sidents also insist that the Board acted arbitrarily by failing to use the cor

rec t standard for a pproving the re quested c hang e and e x pansion in the curr ently non-conf orming use. They

assert that the citation to Metro. Code § 1 7 .40.660 in the Boa rd’s F ebrua

ry 13, 2003 order

ref lects the Boa rd’s c hoice of

an inapplica

ble leg al standard. We disa g ree
. When vie wed in the context of the entire r ecor d, the B oard’ s citation to Metro. Cod e § 17.40.660 re prese nts nothing more than a typog raphic al er

ror.
Metro. C o d e § 1 7

. 4 0

. 6 5 0 p r o v id e s th e s tan d ar d s f o r d e c id in g w h e th e r

to p e r mi t the continuation, expansion , or chang e of a nonconforming use . Metro. Code § 17.40.660 provide s simil ar s tan d ar d s f

o r n o n c o n f o r mi n g s tr

u c tu r e s
. T h e r e ar e s ig n if ic a n t, s e lf

- e v id e n t d if

f e r e nces be tw e e n n on c on fo rm ing us e s a ndno nc on fo rm ing str uc tur e s.T h e trial co urt d ecl i ned t o ad d res s t he res i d ent s’ T enn. C o d e A nn. § 1 3

- 7

- 2 0 8 (c) cl ai m s, at l east in p a rt, 12 b ecause t hey “di d not ass ert t hi s argum ent at t he t i m e o f t he heari ng on t hi s m at t er. ” It i s uncl ear whet her t he t ri al co urt i s ref erri ng t o t he ad m i ni st rat i ve heari ng be fo re t he B o ard o r t he N o vem b er 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 he ari ng in t he t ri al co urt

. W e have
car ef ul l y r evi ewed t he r ecor d and hav e det er mi ned t hat t he r es i dent s r ai s ed t hei r T enn
. C od e A nn
. § 13- 7- 20 8(c) nu i s anc e cl ai ms du r i n g t h e B oar d’ s h ea r i n g s , i n pa r ag r aph s 12, 17, an d 20 of t h e V er i f

i ed Se con d A men ded Pet i t i on for W r i t of C e rtio ra ri, a n d a t t h e o u tse t o f t h e N o v e m b e r 1 2 , 2 0 0 3 he a rin g in the trial c o u rt. -7- The B oard’ s Fe bruary

13, 2003 order

rec ites that t h e “a p p el lant [t he deve loper] HAS established to the satisfac tion of the Boa rd, that the proposed chang es comply with 1 7

. 4 0

. 6 6 0.” Howeve r, whe n this statement is considered in t h e co ntextof the e ntire orde r, it is clear that the re fe re n ce to “17.40.660” should havebeen a ref ere nce to “ 17.40.650.” The order states that the Boa rd wa s considering an application “re questing a chang e and e nlarg ement of a non-conf orming use.” Amajority of t he hearing s focuse d on the proposed uses of the property , not on whether any structure curr ently

on the property was nonconforming

. Most of the conditions the Boa rd plac ed on t h e d e v e l o p m e n tr e l a t e dt o t h e u s e o f t h e p r o p e rt y, n o ta n y s tru c t u r e o n t h e p r o p e rt y. A c c o r d i n g l y, it is p l ai n that the per son prepa ring the Fe bruary

13, 2003 order

for the B oard simply

made a typog raphic al er

ror by typing “ 17.40.660” instead of “17.40.650.” Such a plain and obvious e rror does not requir e a r emand to the B oard f or further proc eeding s. At most, i t ca l l s fo r t he B oard simplyto corre ct its Febr

uary 13, 2003 order

nunc pro tunc

. V. T HE B OARD ’ S D I SP OSI TI ON OF THE R ESI D ENTS ’ N U I SAN C E I SS U ES
The re sidents also arg ue that the B oard f ollowed unl aw fu l proce dures by failing to make spec i fi c finding s of fa ct re g arding the nuisanceclaims they raised in a ccor dancewith Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208( c) and by arbitra rily ref using to a ddress their c oncerns about the potential nuisance s that could arise from the construction and operation of t he proposed development. Eve n though the trial court did not addr ess this issue in it s memorandum and or der, we will a ddress it he re r ather 12 than re manding it for furthe r consider ation. We have determined that the m anner in which the B oard addre ssed the re sidents’ nuisance conce rns was a ppropriate

. A. During the two day s of hea ring s befor e the B oard, the residents e x presse d their conc erns and prese nted evidenc e re g arding potential nuisance s that could be c aused by the construc tion of the planned improvements on the property or by the commercial ac tiviti es that mig ht take plac e at the development on ce it is constructed. Specific ally , they expressed conc erns a

bout: (1) the blasting during the construction of t he im proveme nts; (2) the risk of environmental contamination caused by disturbing the te trac hlorethy lene and other toxi c substance s left in the g round as a result of the operation of the laundry

and dry cleaning fac ility ; ( 3) the incre ased tra ffic in the a rea cause d by

the parkin g garag e; and ( 4) the possible disruption of the neig hborhood caused by the patrons of

the re staur a nts or

oth e r c omm e rc ia l e sta

bli sh me nts

.T he B o ard req ui red p re- and po st

- b l ast i ng s urvey s o f al l pro p ert i es wi t hi n 1 , 0 0 0 f eet and l i m i t ed t he ho urs 13

o f b l asti ng f

ro m 1 0 : 0 0 a.m
. t o 1 2 : 0 0 p .m
. It also req uired t he d ev elo p ers to m ee t wit h the n eigh b o rho o d gro up s at l ea st quar t er l y dur i ng t he cons t r uct i on phas e a nd t o provi de t he r es i dent s wi t h t he na me and t el ephone nu mb er of a c ont act p ers o n.
M e tro . C o d e § 1 7 .4 0 .6 4 0 e x p licitly i n c o rp o ra te s T e n n . C o d e A n n . § 1 3 -7 -2 0 8

.

14
-8- The Boar d responde d to these concerns in sever al way s. First, it pointed out that the potential blasting pr oblems could be a ddresse d technically and included c onditions i n its app ro v al of the projec t spe ci fi cally

intended to addr ess the re sidents’ blasting c oncerns. Second, the B oard 13 conditioned its approval of the deve lopment on expl icit ag ree ments that had bee n rea ched be tween the deve lopers and the residents re g arding the types of c ommercia l establishments in the development, the hour s of oper ation of these e stablishments, an d ex terior sig nag e, lig hting, and security . Third, while the Boar d stated that it did not have authority to deal dire ctly

with “issues of tox ic waste ,” it pointed out repe atedly that no construction would be permitted to pr ocee d until the de ve lop e r c omp lie d w iththeapp lic ablestate a nd loc a l e nv ir on me ntal r e stric tio ns a ndre qu ir e me nts that w e ree nf

or c e d b y oth e r a g e nc ie s.
B.
The residents’ claim that the Boa rd followed an unlawful proce dure is ba sed on Tenn. Code Ann. § 13-7-208( c). They assert that this st atute re quires the B oard to makeexpli cit finding s of 14 fac t a n d to d e v is e s p e c if

ic r e me d ie s to a ll p o te n ti a l n u is a n c e c o n c e r n s th a t a d e v e lo p me nt might raise. We ha ve dete rmined that the re sidents are re ad i n g t o o much into Tenn. Code Ann. § 13- 7- 208(c)

. Te nn . Co de An n. § 1 3- 7- 20 8( c ) i s n ot a ddre sse d ju st t o b oard s of z on ing app e a ls. It is addre ssed to all local government land us e planning and building authorities. The statute states that exis ting nonconforming uses cannot be permitted to e x pand unless the property on whi ch t he e xpa ns ionwi ll o c c ur

ha s su ff ic ie nt space “ to avo id n uis a nc e s to a djo ini ng la nd ow ne rs .” Th us , bo ard s o f zo nin g app e a ls mus t in iti a lly de te rm inethat th e pr op e rty is l arg e e no ug h to a c c omm od a te thepr op os e d e xpa ns ion . H ow e ve r, a bo ard’ s dete rm inatio n th a t th e pr op e rty c a n a pp ro priate ly acc ommodate a pr oposed expansion is not a gua rante e that the p roperty

owner will not create a nuisance during the construc tion of the projec t. The re sponsibili ty for assuring that a nuisanc e is not c re a te d o r f

or abatin g a nu isanc e re sts wi th o the r g ov e rn me ntal a g e nc ie s. The B oard’ s rec orded de liberations re flec t its conclusion that the pr oposed deve lopment was not a nuisanceper se and that it would be compatible with the surrounding neig hborhood once it was completed. The Boa

rd also dete rmined t hat t he proposed development could be constructed without c re a tin g a nu isanc e . T hu s, c on tr ary to the re sid e nts ’ a sse rtion s th a t th e B oa rdturne d a

de a f e ar t o the ir nu isanc e c on c e rn s, there c or d d e mon str a te s con vin c ing ly that th e B oa

rda c te d to thefu lle st extent of its power to addre ss the residents’ stated nui sance conce rns. Acc ording ly , we f ind that the B oa rddidno t a c t un la wf

ull y or arb itr ari ly

wi th r e g ardto the re sid e nts ’ n uis a nc e iss ue s.-9- VI . We a ff irm the tria l c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion that the B oa rd did no t a c t un la wf

ull y or arb itr ari ly

wi th reg ard to its approva l of the propose d development in this case . We remand this ca se to the trial court for whateve r further procee dings consistent with this opinion may be required, and we tax the costs of this appeal, jointly and severally , to J ohn Moore, Gloria McKissac k, Arvanzena Clardy , and J uanita Dr ake and their sure ty for whic h execution, if nece ssary , may issue.

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