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

Heading: Ruling by the Court of Appeals

Text: On direct appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the chancellor's ruling, holding that the 1992 zoning resolution was void ab initio because the board of commission failed to adhere to the procedural requirements of Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-7-105. The court ruled the declaratory judgment action was not subject to any statute of limitation, concluding that the passage of time is meaningless. Because there was a failure to meet the mandatory statutory notice requirements for the entire ninety acres and because the departure from the ten-acre request was so substantial, the Court of Appeals characterized the resolution by the board of commission, absent prior review by the planning commission, as an ultra vires exercise of zoning power. The Court of Appeals remanded to the trial court, however, describing its determination as within the context of a Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion only and without prejudice to the rights of any party to further develop the record after remand. Our Court of Appeals, which also concluded that the 1992 resolution qualified as a rezoning or reclassification amending the zoning map, relied in great measure on DeLucia v. Town of Jamestown, 107 R.I. 179, 265 A.2d 636 (1970), where the Supreme Court of Rhode Island ruled that if the local legislature is free to make substantial alterations in either the proposed map or ordinance without again giving notice and conducting a public hearing, the holding of such hearing becomes meaningless. Having heretofore held . . . that such public notice and hearing are conditions precedent to the local legislature's jurisdiction to take final action, we conclude that the alterations to the proposed map and ordinance in the instant case, if substantial, were made in excess of the Jamestown Town Council's jurisdiction. Id. at 640 (emphasis added). The Jacksons and Mayor Allen, not joined in the application for permission to appeal by Loveless, contend that the Rutherford County Land Use Application Form was not a request for rezoning but sought instead only a special exception or conditional use permit to allow skeet and trap shooting. These Defendants argue that prior review by the planning commission is not required for such a use, as a special exception denotes a species of administrative permission which allows an owner to put his property to a use which zoning regulations expressly permit under certain conditions specified in such regulations themselves. See 82 Am.Jur.2d Zoning and Planning § 225 (1976). The Service 7997 classification in Rutherford County allows for miscellaneous amusement and recreation services, membership sports and recreation clubs. The Defendants assert that the special exception or conditional use permit process qualifies as an administrative function and the usual safeguards afforded prior to the amendment of a zoning ordinance are unnecessary. In the alternative, the Defendants contend that the ruling of the Court of Appeals that a procedurally defective reclassification is void from its inception could create chaos for counties which have failed to follow with precision the statutory procedure when adopting zoning changes.