Opinion ID: 3153518
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: Allegations of the Petition Because of the procedural posture of this matter, we deem it helpful to recite, in pertinent part, certain of Metro‟s allegations set forth in the Petition: 14. The BZA‟s decisions [to grant the permits] are contrary to law and should be reversed, or, in the alternative, the case should be remanded to the BZA for a correct consideration of the issues. 1 According to the Permittees‟ brief, Equitable Trust had not yet been served as a party at the time the motion to dismiss was filed. Equitable Trust was served while the motion to dismiss was pending and “was properly before the [chancery] [c]ourt at the time” the order granting the motion to dismiss was entered. 2 The Permittees did not challenge Metro‟s authority to file the Petition in their motion to dismiss. This Court asked the parties to address this issue in its Order granting the application for permission to appeal. 3 15. The BZA‟s decisions of April 26, 2012 would allow a permit for billboards in violation of the Metropolitan Government‟s zoning code, specifically the distance requirements of M.C.L. § 17.32.050(G) and M.C.L. § 17.32.150(B).3 16. CBS Outdoor, Inc. did not present (and cannot present) a proper justification under the local zoning code or under state law (e.g., T.C.A. § 13-7-208 or other law) for its position that it is not subject to the distance requirements of the Metropolitan Code. 17. The Metropolitan Government is an aggrieved party as contemplated under T.C.A. § 27-9-101 because the BZA‟s April 26, 2012 decision now interferes with the Metropolitan Government‟s ability to fulfill its obligations under the local zoning code (which, in turn, is authorized by the state enabling statutes as well as the Metro Charter), in that the distance requirements cannot be enforced at these sites. 18. For the same reasons, the BZA‟s decision, if left in place, will have a substantial, direct, and adverse effect on the Metropolitan Government in its corporate capacity. We now turn to our analysis of whether Metro has established its standing to pursue the Petition.