### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE
TELLICO RESERVOIR DEVELOPMEN T AGENCY V. TOWN OF VONORE
Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Monroe County No. 12,458 Hon. Jerri S. Bryant, Judge

No. E1999-02452-COA-R3-CV - Decided June 23, 2000

In this Declaratory Judgment action, the Trial Court ruled plaintiff had exc

lusive authority to

issue building permits on the lands it controlled. Defendant appealed.

Tenn. R. App. P.3 Appeal as of Right; Judgmen

t of the Chancery

Court Affirmed.

F RANKS , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which S USANO , J., and S WINEY , J., joined.

Robert N. Goddard, Goddard & Gamble, Maryville, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
Sharon G. Lee, Ma

disonville, for De

fendant-Appell

ant.

OPINION

Plaintiff Tellico Reservoir Deve l opment Agency (“TRDA”) was gr anted summary judgment in its declaratory

judgment action a

gainst defendant Town of Vonore (“Vonore”). Vonore has appealed.

The dispute in this ca se focuses on who

has the authority

to issue building pe

rmits for buildings constructed on development lands controlled by TRDA, which are

located within the boundaries of Vonore.

Inentering summary judgment, the Trial Court found that there were inconsistencies between the ordinances of Vonore and the TRDA development

standards. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §29-14-101 et

seq ., the Court ruled that TRDA had the sole authority

for improvements t

o its-2-

development

lands, including the issuance of building permits, and Vonore was restrai n ed from interfering with improvements on TRDA development lands.

The Trial Court’s ruling, a summary judg

ment, is not favore

d with a presumption of correctness. Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston , 854 S.W.2d 87 (Tenn. 1993).

TRDA was created by Tenn. C ode Ann. §64-1-701 et seq ., which states tha t its purpose is for: developingand effectuating plans and programs for the comprehensive development of, acquiri ng, operatin g, managing, sel ling, leasing a

nd the developmen

t of all or a portion of the lands lying within the Tennessee Valley Auth

ority Tellic

o Reservoir project area, as shown on the official tract maps of the Ten nes see V all ey Au tho rit y, and such contiguous lands as may be acquired by or transferred to the agency w ithin the watershed of the

Little Tennessee River, including portions of Monroe, Loudon, and Blount counties, hereinafter "development lands," all in acc ordance with the public purposes for which the Te ll ico Reservoir project was established and developed. Tenn. Code Ann. §64-1-701(b).

To effectuate this purpose, TRDA has the power to enter in

to contracts,

to buy, sell, and lease property, to promul gat e and enforce rules regarding the use of said property , etc. Tenn. Code A nn. §64 -1-703. TRDA is also to “develop a comprehensive development plan for the economic growth and residential , recr eational, commercial and industrial development of the development

lands.” Tenn. Code Ann. §64-1-705. Tenn. Cod e Ann. §64-1-709(b), the enabling legislation, pro

vides: Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, upon enactment of this section, the comprehensive development plan, as adopted, approved and amend ed by the agen cy, shall control the development within the development lands acquired by the agen cy. Any municipal planning regulation adopted pursuant to title 13, chapter 4, any county zoning regulation adopted pursuant to title 13, chapter 7, any municipal zoning regulation ado

pted pursuant to titl

e 13, chapter 7, wh

ich shall be adopted with respect to or shall apply to any portion of such development lands shall be super seded by the comprehensive development pla n adopted, approved and amended by the agen cy, and, to the extent tha t same is inconsistent with the agency's comprehensive development plan, shall be of no force or effect as

regards any such lands acquired by th e age ncy. TRDA has adopted a comprehensive development plan pursuant to the statute.

Vonore argues that s

ince it and the TRDA have both adopted the 1997 Southern-3-

Building Code, the p rovisions of its bui lding code have not been superseded because there are no inconsistencies.

Whether there ar

e inconsistencie

s is not crucial to th

is analysis

because the statute expressly states that the TRDA comprehensive development plan supers edes any municipal regulation adopted pursuant to title 13, chapters 4 and 7.

This Court has long re

cognized that s tatutes contained in Title 13 give local governments

power to zone and plan, which is precisely the power that the TRDA enabling legislation

supersedes, bot

h general ly and specifically. Family Golf of Nashville, Inc. v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville , 964 S.W.2d 254 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997); Tenn. Code Ann. §64-1-709(b). Vonore concedes that TRDA is exempt from Vonore’s planning and zoning, but not from its building c

ode enforceme

nt. This argumen

t fails because th

e issuance of buil

ding permits cannot be severed fro

m general plann

ing and zoning du

ties, such that the

ability to issu

e permits is notsuperseded by the TRDA’s powers, when the record shows that

the ordinances which control the issuance of building permits in Vonore are the zoning ordinances. Vonore’s power to issue building permits derives from

the delegation

of power to zone by the legislature in Tenn. Code Ann. §13-7- 201, which as related

to the issue befor

e us is expressl

y supplanted

by Tenn. Code Ann. §64-1- 709(b).

Fin all y, Vonore argue s that it has the powe

r to issue building permits pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §6-2-201(25) or Tenn. Code Ann. §68-120-101(b)(2), which are not superseded by Tenn. Code Ann. §64

-1-709(b). Tenn

. Code Ann. §6-2-2

01(25) is part of t

he code dealing

with municipalities which have adopted the Mayor-Ald ermanic Charter

, and there is

nothing in the record to establish that Vonore would fall within thi s specifications o

f the statute. I

n fact, this

point was disputed by TRDA in the trial court, and there is no evidence that Vonore responded or in any way sought to prove its status regarding this issue. Tenn. Code Ann. §68-120-101(b)(2) likewise deals with local governments who

can regulate

their own buildings upon certifying to the state fire marshal that they have adopted a standard building code and are enforcing the same. Again, there is no proof inthe record that Vonore has complied with this statute, or how this would give Vo

nore the authorit

y to issue building permits. Vonore finally argues that somehow safety would be improved if it too is allowed to regulate the buildings on TRDA lands, but TRDA has demonstrated tha

t it has adopted the Southern Building Code and is in compliance with the same, and that its buildings are inspected and approved by licensed engineers.

We find these argument are without merit and affirm the judgment of the Trial Court and remand with c

ost of the cause a

ssessed to the appe

llant.