Opinion ID: 1057895
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Relevant Code Provisions

Text: Part 1 of Chapter 7 of Tennessee Code Annotated pertains to county zoning and, in 1992, was codified in sections 13-7-101 through -116. A county acquires its power to enact zoning regulations from the state. Cherokee Country Club, Inc. v. City of Knoxville, 152 S.W.3d 466, 471 (Tenn. 2004); State ex rel. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Tenn., Inc. v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Knox County, Tenn., 806 S.W.2d 181, 187 (Tenn.Ct.App.1990) (citing Henry v. White, 194 Tenn. 192, 250 S.W.2d 70, 72 (1952) and State ex rel. Lightman v. City of Nashville, 166 Tenn. 191, 60 S.W.2d 161, 162 (1933)). Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-101, entitled Grant of Zoning Power, provides in part as follows: The county legislative body of any county is empowered, in accordance with the conditions and the procedure specified in this part, to regulate . . . the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, agriculture, forestry, soil conservation, water supply conservation or other purposes. . . . Tenn.Code Ann. § 13-7-101(a)(1) (1992). The pertinent provision of Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-102 provides that the county legislative body may, by ordinance, . . . divide the territory of the county which lies . . . outside of municipal corporations into districts . . . and within such districts may regulate the erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration and uses of buildings and structures and the uses of land. Id. § 13-7-102 (1992). Although the county legislative body has the power to amend zoning ordinances, the amendment must first be submitted to the regional planning commission. Id. (1992). Without prior submission, the amendment is of no effect. Id. The planning commission's authority is limited to approval, disapproval, or suggestions, and if the planning commission disapproves, the proposal may nevertheless be considered and approved by the county legislative body. Id. Inasmuch as zoning laws are in derogation of the common law and operate to deprive a property owner of a use of land that would otherwise be lawful, such laws are to be strictly construed in favor of the property owner. State ex rel. Wright v. City of Oak Hill, 204 Tenn. 353, 321 S.W.2d 557, 559 (1959). Legislative classification in a zoning law, ordinance or resolution is valid if any possible reason can be conceived to justify it. State ex rel. SCA Chem. Waste Servs., Inc. v. Konigsberg, 636 S.W.2d 430, 437 (Tenn.1982). As we found in McCallen v. City of Memphis, 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. 786 S.W.2d 633, 641 (Tenn.1990). There are two reported decisions from the Court of Appeals that are pertinent to the issues before us. First, in State ex rel. SCA Chem. Servs., Inc. v. Sanidas, 681 S.W.2d 557 (Tenn.Ct.App.1984), a matter in which an amendment to an ordinance was neither submitted to the Shelby County Land Use Control Board nor subjected to a public hearing prior to its passage, the Court of Appeals held that the amendment to the zoning ordinance was void and invalid and observed as follows: Procedural requirements are considered by the courts to be safeguards against arbitrary exercise of power. Failure to comply with such procedural requirements has been regarded not only as an ultra vires act on the part of municipal legislators, but also as a denial of due process of law. Indeed, a statute or ordinance which fails to require legislative notice and a hearing prior to the enactment of a zoning ordinance may be regarded as invalid for failure to require procedure which comports with due process of law. Id. at 564 (quoting 1 Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 4.03 (1976)). In Hutcherson v. Criner, the Tennessee Court of Appeals considered an amendment to a zoning ordinance that was enacted following a published notice that was misleading and failed to give the necessary information to the interested parties. 11 S.W.3d 126, 135 (Tenn.Ct.App.1999). In holding the amendment invalid, the Court of Appeals relied in great measure on its prior holding in Sanidas : The procedural steps which the legislatures have put in place in the form of enabling statutes governing the enactment of zoning ordinances usually are regarded as mandatory, and a failure substantially to comply with such requirements renders . . . the zoning ordinance invalid. Id. at 134 (quoting 83 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning § 581 (1992)).