ÿWPCE …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ w 0J 0TZ 0^® 0h 0rt 0|æ 0†b 0è 1ux U,í 0d U,} U>© B)ç DC AMSU* õÊv~¿ B=vÓZ D3- 0@` AO Æï 0Dµ D/ù B(˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0†(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡nnG ô3|xùïÓ€ù2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd€- Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ëÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÔ€"ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌMarch€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@ dStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€EX€RELà àà à)ÌFIRST€AMERICAN€NATIONALà àà à)ÌBANK€and€DOUBLE€M€PARTNERS,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)à àWilliamson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€22642ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€à àAppeal€No.€01„A„01„9408„CH„00394ÌCITY€OF€FRANKLIN€MUNICIPALà à)ÌÙ€€ÙßL€!# ;+'h|Ä<` ç `€€LßPLANNING€COMMISSION,à àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌHON.€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌMichael€L.€DagleyÌFarris,€Warfield€&€KanadyÌThird€National€Financial€CenterÌ424€Church€Street,€Suite€1900ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„2327ÌATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌDouglas€BerryÌWeed,€Hubbard,€Berry€&€DoughtyÌThird€National€Financial€CenterÌ424€Church€Street,€Suite€2900ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37219„2319ÌATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à€€LEE€RUSSELL,€SPECIALÏJUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,€EX€RELà àà à)ÌÑ7€eXXdìXXdì7ÑFIRST€AMERICAN€NATIONALà àà à)ÌBANK€and€DOUBLE€M€PARTNERS,à à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àWilliamson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€€€à àNo.€22642ÌCITY€OF€FRANKLIN€MUNICIPALà à)ÌPLANNING€COMMISSION,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌÓ  Óòòò òÔ€¼ÔO€€P€€I€€N€€I€€O€€Nó óóóÔ€XÔÓ  ÓÌÓÓà àThis€is€an€appeal€taken€from€the€trial€court's€refusal€to€issue€a€writ€of€mandamus€to€theÏAppellee€City€of€Franklin€Municipal€Planning€Commission€("FMPC")€€to€conduct€a€hearingÏand€rule€on€the€application€of€the€Appellants„Relators€First€American€National€Bank€("FirstÏAmerican")€and€Double€M€Partners€("Double€M")€for€issuance€of€a€site€permit€to€build€aÏconvenience€storage€facility€at€an€intersection€in€Franklin,€Tennessee,€and€dismissing€theÏcomplaint€for€mandamus€and€for€declaration€that€City€of€Franklin€zoning€ordinance€94„16€wasÏinvalid.€€€The€trial€court€is€upheld€in€its€conclusion€that€the€Relators€had€no€vested€interest€in€theÏcontinuity€of€zoning€and€that€the€FMPC€acted€lawfully€in€twice€deferring€action€on€theÏRelators'€site€plan€while€a€new€zoning€ordinance€was€being€passed€which€rendered€the€site€planÏout€of€compliance€with€zoning.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed€in€its€ruling€that€a€writ€of€mandamusÏshould€not€have€been€issued€in€this€case.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOn€April€17,€1991,€the€City€of€Franklin€enacted€a€comprehensive€amendment€to€itsÏZoning€Ordinance,€rezoning€extensive€areas€and€setting€forth€detailed€schedules€of€permittedÏuses€within€each€of€the€zones€created.€€Under€this€new€ordinance,€the€site€which€is€the€subjectÍof€this€litigation,€located€in€Aspen€Grove€Subdivision€at€the€intersection€of€Cool€SpringsÏBoulevard€and€Mark€Hatcher€Parkway,€was€zoned€General€Commercial€("GC").€€It€isÏundisputed€that€this€zone€initially€permitted€"convenience€storage"€as€a€use.€€In€December€ofÏ1993,€Appellant€Double€M,€a€partnership,€contracted€with€Appellant€First€American€toÏpurchase€the€subject€real€estate€to€construct€a€€convenience€€storage€€facility.€€Double€M€Ïretained€€Anderson„Delk€€&€€Associates€("Anderson„Delk"),€a€civil€engineering€firm,€to€prepareÏand€submit€a€site€plan€to€the€City€of€Franklin€for€the€proposed€project.ÌÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€the€fall€of€1993,€Franklin€Mayor€Jerry€W.€Sharber€and€several€of€Franklin'sÏaldermen€and€FMPC€commissioners€became€concerned€about€the€need€to€control€more€strictlyÏthe€development€of€the€so€called€"gateways"€or€undeveloped€corridors€into€Franklin.€€CoolÏSprings€Boulevard€in€Aspen€Grove€is€one€such€gateway.€€In€November€of€1993,€MayorÏSharber€and€Alderman€Steve€Smith€("Smith"),€who€also€serves€as€a€commissioner€on€theÏFMPC,€discussed€concerns€about€the€development€of€the€Cool€Springs€Boulevard€corridor.€€InÏNovember€and€December€of€1993,€Smith€had€multiple€discussions€with€the€Mayor€and€otherÏCity€and€FMPC€officials€about€the€need€to€review€the€zoning€in€the€Cool€Springs€area.€€DuringÏthe€same€period,€Smith€became€aware€of€and€concerned€about€the€possibility€of€theÏconvenience€storage€project€at€the€subject€site.€€In€December€of€1993,€Smith€requested€thatÏFMPC€Chairman€Tom€Miller€("Miller")€convene€a€uses€study€committee€of€the€FMPC€("UsesÏCommittee")€to€study€generally€the€uses€and€restrictions€in€the€GC€zone.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOn€January€5,€1994,€Harold€Delk€("Delk")€of€Anderson„Delk€met€with€the€staff€€of€theÏFMPC€for€a€pre„application€conference€which€was€preliminary€to€submission€of€a€site€plan€forÏthe€convenience€storage€project.€€Approval€of€a€site€plan€by€FMPC€was€required€prior€toÏissuance€of€a€building€permit.€€FMPC€staff€members€may€have€expressed€some€minorÏreservations€about€the€site€at€the€meeting.€€On€January€6,€1994,€while€discussing€unrelatedÍprojects,€Miller€and€Smith€made€reference€to€upcoming€meetings€scheduled€for€January€18,Ï1994,€and€February€8,€1994,€at€which€the€FMPC€would€discuss€generally€uses€permitted€in€theÏvarious€zoning€districts.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAt€the€January€18,€1994,€meeting€of€the€FMPC,€the€agency€appointed€the€three„memberÏUses€Committee€to€review€uses€permitted€in€the€various€zoning€districts€and€to€makeÏrecommendations€to€the€full€FMPC.€€On€February€8,€1994,€Double€M€submitted€its€site€planÏfor€review€by€the€FMPC€staff,€and€the€site€plan€was€placed€on€the€agenda€of€the€March€15,Ï1994,€meeting€of€the€FMPC.€€After€February€8€but€before€the€scheduled€March€meeting€of€theÏFMPC,€Delk€became€aware€of€the€Uses€Committee€and€of€concerns€about€the€Double€MÏproject,€and€he€Ìadvised€Doyle€Monday€("Monday"),€€a€partner€in€Double€M,€about€the€creation€of€the€UsesÏCommittee.ÌÌÓÓÌÓÓà àNeither€Delk€nor€Monday€went€to€the€FMPC€staff€or€to€FMPC€members€about€the€UsesÏCommittee's€purpose.€€However,€on€the€recommendation€of€the€other€partner€in€Anderson„Delk,€Monday€contacted€a€private€citizen,€the€head€of€Franklin's€Heritage€Foundation.€€ThisÏcontact€was€made€at€least€two€weeks€before€the€March€15,€1994,€meeting€of€the€FMPC.€€DelkÏrecognized€the€apparent€connection€between€the€creation€of€the€Uses€Committee€and€the€DoubleÏM€project.€€Monday€testified€that€only€on€March€15,€before€the€scheduled€meeting,€did€he€learnÏfrom€a€letter€by€the€head€of€the€Heritage€Foundation€that€Franklin€was€considering€a€zoningÏchange€that€might€affect€the€Double€M€project.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAt€the€FMPC€meeting€on€March€15,€1994,€the€Double€M€project€was€on€the€agenda,Ïand€it€is€undisputed€that€the€site€plan€met€the€then€existing€zoning€requirements.€€On€Miller'sÏrecommendation,€action€on€the€site€plan€was€deferred€until€April€26,€1994,€and€action€was€alsoÍdeferred€on€the€site€plan€for€a€mini„storage€facility€in€the€Woodlands€Subdivision.€€The€reasonÏgiven€for€deferring€action€was€to€await€receipt€of€the€recommendations€of€the€Uses€CommitteeÏon€the€GC€district.€€On€March€17,1994,€the€Uses€Committee€met€for€the€first€and€only€time€andÏrecommended€that€a€draft€of€what€would€become€Ordinance€94„16€€be€presented€to€the€FMPCÏat€its€April€meeting€and€that€it€be€passed€by€the€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermen.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOrdinance€94„16€amended€€the€earlier€zoning€ordinance€to€delete€or€further€restrictÏseveral€permitted€uses€in€the€GC€zone.€€Convenience€storage€use€was€not€the€only€useÏamended.€€The€ordinance€did€not€eliminate€convenience€storage€as€a€use,€but€merely€precludedÏthis€particular€use€within€five€hundred€feet€of€a€major€arterial€roadway.€€The€Double€M€site€planÏwould€not€meet€this€new€restriction.€€On€April€12,€1994,€Ordinance€94„16€passed€a€firstÏreading€before€the€Franklin€Board€of€Mayor€and€Aldermen.€€Then€on€April€26,€1994,€theÏFMPC€again€met€and€had€on€the€agenda€the€Double€M€site€plan.€€Action€on€the€Double€M€siteÏplan€€was€deferred€for€an€additional€sixty€days€because€of€the€pendency€of€Ordinance€94„16.€ÏAt€the€same€meeting,€the€Woodlands€Subdivision€mini„storage€facility€was€approved€because€itÏwas€more€than€five€hundred€feet€from€an€arterial€street.€€The€FMPC€also€voted€to€refer€to€theÏUses€Committee€the€issue€of€whether€gateway€zoning€should€be€adopted€in€order€to€imposeÏadditional€restrictions€on€main€entryways€into€Franklin.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOn€May€16,€1994,€the€Mayor€and€Board€of€Aldermen€passed€Ordinance€94„16€onÏsecond€reading,€and€on€May€31,€1994,€the€ordinance€was€passed€on€third€reading.€€In€theÏmeantime,€on€April€27,€1994,€this€mandamus€action€had€been€filed€by€First€American€in€theÏChancery€Court€of€Williamson€County€to€force€the€FMPC€to€act€on€the€site€plan.€€Double€MÏintervened€on€June€14,€1994,€and€the€trial€began€on€June€15,€1994.€€At€no€time€subsequent€toÏApril€26,€1994,€was€the€site€plan€presented€to€the€FMPC,€either€in€its€original€form€or€in€a€formÏaltered€to€meet€the€additional€restrictions€of€Ordinance€94„16.€€The€FMPC€therefore€has€neverÏacted€on€the€site€plan.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€reasons€given€at€trial€by€FMPC€commissioners€for€enactment€of€Ordinance€94„16Ïvaried€somewhat,€but€generally€fell€into€two€categories.€€First,€there€were€purely€aestheticÏconcerns,€and€second,€it€was€believed€that€there€was€an€inconsistency€between€convenienceÏstorage€and€other€general€commercial€uses.€€Double€M€put€on€testimony€that€it€expendedÏbetween€$55,000.00€and€$70,000.00€in€designing€the€proposed€project€and€site€plan.€ÏEngineering€drawings€cost€$12,000.00€and€showed€the€building€on€the€site€and€the€location€ofÏthe€infrastructure,€but€were€not€what€is€generally€considered€construction€drawings€for€theÏbuilding€as€such.€€Monday€also€made€claims€for€his€time€spent€on€the€project,€billed€at€his€rateÏas€an€expert€real€estate€appraiser,€and€for€his€legal€fees€and€the€costs€of€drawings€used€at€trialÏbut€not€used€before€the€FMPC.€€No€actual€construction€ever€commenced.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€trial€court€ruled€that€the€Relators€had€no€vested€right€to€the€benefit€of€the€zoningÏordinance€in€effect€on€March€15,€1994,€and€on€April€26,€1994.€€The€trial€court€also€held€that€asÏof€March€15,€1994,€the€Relators€"had€such€knowledge€of€the€ongoing€study€of€the€UsesÏCommittee€as€to€constitute€pending€legislation."€€It€was€ruled€that€deferral€was€"the€best€choice"Ïby€the€FMPC€on€April€15,€1994,€because€subsequent€final€approval€of€Ordinance€94„16€wouldÏhave€allowed€retroactive€disallowance€of€the€plan€site€and€building€permit.€€The€trial€courtÏexpressly€ruled€that€Ordinance€94„16€was€constitutionally€valid.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Relators€urge€that€the€ruling€of€the€trial€court€should€be€reversed€for€three€reasons.€ÏFirst,€the€Relators€insist€that€it€was€error€for€the€trial€court€not€to€address€the€issue€of€whetherÏthe€FMPC's€initial€deferral€of€action€on€March€15,€1994,€on€the€site€plan€was€arbitrary,Ïunreasonable,€ÌÌor€wrongful.€€€Second,€the€Relators€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€ruling€that€OrdinanceÏ94„Ì16€was€"pending€legislation"€on€March€15,€1994.€€Third,€the€Relators€argue€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€in€failing€to€consider€their€argument€that€they€had€detrimentally€relied€on€the€prior€existingÏzoning€in€Franklin€and€had€relied€on€the€representations€of€the€FMPC.ÌÌà àThe€trial€court's€findings€of€fact€in€this€case€are€to€be€reviewed€òòde€novoóó€with€aÏpresumption€of€correctness€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€to€the€contrary.€€WhereÏthe€issue€is€one€of€law€because€the€facts€are€not€in€dispute,€there€is€no€presumption€in€favor€ofÏthe€trial€court's€conclusions.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.ÏHuddleston,€óó854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).€€In€this€case,€the€Relators€do€not€challenge€anyÏof€the€numerous€specific€findings€of€fact€made€by€the€trial€court,€which€findings€are€essentiallyÏthose€set€out€hereinabove.€€The€Relators€challenge€what€they€insist€the€trial€court€failed€to€find,Ïand€they€challenge€the€legal€conclusions€reached€by€the€trial€court.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€general€rule€is€well€established€and€is€agreed€by€all€parties€here€to€be€that€there€is€noÏ"vested€right"€to€continuity€of€zoning€or€in€the€issuance€of€a€building€permit€or€approval€of€aÏsite€plan€based€on€prior€zoning€unless€actual€construction€has€commenced.€€òòState€ex€rel.€SCAÏChemical€Waste€Services,€Inc.€v.€Komigsberg,€óó636€S.W.2d€430€(Tenn.€1982);€òòSchmieder€v.ÏLazarov,€óó390€S.W.2d€197€(Tenn.€1965);€òòHowe€Realty€Co.€v.€City€of€Nashville,€óó141€S.W.2dÏ904€(Tenn.€1940).€€In€the€case€now€pending€no€construction€had€commenced€€There€existed€noÏstate€statute€and€no€procedural€rule€of€the€FMPC€and€no€ordinance€of€the€Board€of€Mayor€andÏAldermen€of€Franklin€that€required€the€FMPC€to€act€within€a€specified€period€of€time€on€aÏgiven€site€plan.€€No€caselaw€is€cited€that€supports€the€proposition€that€an€applicant€has€anÏabsolute€right€to€have€a€site€plan€voted€on€the€first€time€it€is€placed€on€the€agenda€of€theÏregulatory€body.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àAlthough€the€trial€court€did€not€expressly€rule€that€the€deferral€on€March€15,€1994,€wasÏnot€arbitrary,€unreasonable,€or€wrongful,€it€is€clear€from€the€record€that€the€initial€decision€toÍdefer€was€none€of€these€things.€€The€delay€from€the€initial€application€on€February€8,€1994,€toÏthe€March€15,€1994,€hearing€was€approximately€a€month€and€a€week,€and€the€first€deferral€was€ÌÌÌonly€an€additional€thirty€days.€€The€reason€for€the€deferral€was€that€concerns€had€arisen€in€1993Ïabout€convenience€storage€and€other€uses€in€this€and€other€gateways€into€Franklin.€€TheseÏconcerns€were€similar€to€those€with€which€municipal€planning€commissioners€normally€involveÏthemselves€and€concerns€in€response€to€which€such€commissioners€normally€makeÏrecommendations€concerning€needed€legislation€by€the€primary€governing€bodies€of€theÏmunicipalities.€€There€is€no€hint€in€the€record€that€the€FMPC€or€anyone€involved€in€FranklinÏgovernment€had€or€acted€upon€any€animosity€toward€the€Relators€or€that€anyone€in€FranklinÏgovernment€had€any€agenda€except€the€preservation€and€promotion€of€the€orderly€andÏaesthetically€pleasing€development€of€Franklin.€€The€initial€deferral€was€not€arbitrary,Ïunreasonable,€or€wrongful.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àBy€the€time€of€the€second€deferral€of€action€by€the€FMPC€on€April€26,€1994,€OrdinanceÏ94„16€was€pending.€€The€Uses€Committee€had€met€and€recommended€the€ordinance,€and€theÏFMPC€staff€had€communicated€the€recommendation€over€a€month€earlier.€€The€FMPC€could€onÏApril€26,€1994,€have€refused€to€approve€the€site€plan€on€the€basis€of€it€being€contrary€to€theÏpending€and€later€enacted€Ordinance€94„16.€€òòSee€SCA€Chemical€óóat€436.€€€It€is€clear€in€theÏrecord€that€the€second€deferral€was€not€arbitrary,€unreasonable,€or€wrongful,€but€was€intendedÏto€allow€the€Board€to€make€a€final€determination€on€a€pending€ordinance.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€òòSCA€Chemical€óócase€is€instructive.€€In€that€case,€a€chemical€company€applied€for€aÏclean€air€permit€from€the€Shelby€County€Health€Department€on€September€4,€1990,€as€part€ofÏthe€process€of€building€a€waste€disposal€facility€in€Memphis.€€Over€a€month€later,€on€OctoberÏ6,€1980,€the€governing€bodies€of€Memphis€and€Shelby€County€jointly€passed€a€comprehensiveÍnew€zoning€scheme€which,€among€other€things,€added€restrictions€to€waste€processing.€€TheÏnew€zoning€had€an€effective€date€of€€January€1,€1981.€€On€October€9,€1980,€SCA€ChemicalÏapplied€for€a€grading€permit€to€begin€the€process€of€constructing€its€new€facility.€€The€ChiefÏBuilding€Officer€of€Shelby€County€did€not€act€on€the€application.€€On€October€22,€1980,€theÏBoard€of€Shelby€County€passed€a€resolution€which€directed€all€county€agencies€not€to€issueÏpermits€to€SCA€Chemical€until€January€15,€1981,€and€then€to€require€SCA€Chemical€to€meet€allÏstandards€ÌÌin€effect€on€January€15,€1981.€€The€resolution€was€directed€at€SCA€Chemical€by€name€andÏapplied€to€no€other€entity.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOn€October€27,€1980,€SCA€Chemical€went€into€court€seeking€a€mandamus€to€force€theÏShelby€County€Health€Department€to€issue€the€clean€air€permit.€€On€November€3,€1980,€ShelbyÏCounty€amended€its€resolution€of€October€22,€1980,€to€make€it€apply€to€any€proposed€plant€forÏhazardous€waste€treatment.€€The€trial€court€ruled€that€the€County€Board€of€Commissioners€hadÏnot€acted€arbitrarily,€capriciously,€illegally,€unlawfully,€or€beyond€its€jurisdiction€in€adoptingÏtheÌresolutions€of€October€22,€1980,€and€November€3,€1980,€and€that€therefore€the€HealthÏDepartment€was€under€no€obligations€to€issue€the€permit.€After€the€trial€but€not€until€JanuaryÏ15,€1981,€over€four€months€following€the€initial€application,€the€clean€air€permit€was€issued.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOur€Supreme€Court€observed€that€ordinances€of€the€type€passed€by€Memphis€andÏShelby€County€are€called€"stopgap"€or€"interim"€ordinances€and€that€their€"function€andÏpurpose€is€to€preserve€temporarily€the€status€quo€of€the€municipality€or€section€thereof€to€whichÏthey€apply€until€a€pending€permanent€zoning€regulation€[can]€be€finally€adopted."€€òòId.€óóat€434.€ÏThe€Supreme€Court€goes€on€to€explain€that€"because€it€takes€much€time€to€work€out€the€detailsÏof€a€comprehensive€zoning€plan€and€it€would€be€destructive€of€the€plan€if,€during€the€period€ofÍits€incubation€and€consideration,€persons€seeking€to€evade€its€operation€should€be€permitted€toÏenter€upon€a€course€of€construction€that€would€progress€so€far€as€to€defeat,€in€whole€or€in€part,Ïthe€ultimate€execution€of€the€plan."€€òòId.€óóat€435€òòciting€with€approval€Miller€v.€Board€of€PublicÏWorks,€óó195€Cal.€777,€234€P.€381€(1925).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€facts€inòò€SCA€Chemicalóó€are€somewhat€different€from€those€in€the€case€now€pending.€ÏIn€òòSCA€Chemical,€óóthe€agencies€initially€deferred€action€themselves€but€it€was€the€chiefÏlegislative€body€of€the€county€that€ultimately€stalled€action€by€its€agencies,€whereas€the€FMPCÏin€the€case€now€pending€decided€itself€to€defer€action€twice.€€This€appears€to€be€a€distinctionÏwithout€a€difference.€€The€facts€are€actually€stronger€in€òòSCA€Chemical€óóthan€in€the€pending€caseÏfor€the€proposition€that€the€target€of€the€zoning€changes€was€a€particular€company€and€aÏparticular€project,€as€the€initial€stopgap€resolution€in€òòSCA€Chemicalóó€specified€a€company€and€aÏproject.€€In€the€case€now€pending,€while€it€is€conceded€by€the€FMPC€that€the€proposedÏconvenience€storage€project€was€an€impetus€for€the€passage€of€Ordinance€94„16,€the€concernsÏof€the€FMPC€and€of€the€City€of€Franklin€were€broader€€and€involved€more€generallyÏdevelopment€of€the€gateways€into€the€city.€€It€is€noted€that€in€òòSCA€Chemical,€óóa€clean€air€permitÏwas€sought€before€passage€of€the€new€zoning€€and€before€passage€of€a€stopgap€ordinance,Ïsimilar€to€the€situation€in€the€case€now€pending.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àOrdinance€94„16€was€never€actually€applied€by€the€FMPC€to€deny€approval€of€theÏRelators'€site€plan,€but€the€constitutionality€of€the€ordinance€is€challenged€in€a€less€thanÏvigorousÌmanner€by€the€Relators.€€It€is€well€established€that€legislative€classification€in€a€zoning€law,Ïordinance,€or€resolution€is€valid€if€any€possible€reason€can€be€conceived€to€justify€it.€€òòSCAÏChemical€óóat€437;€òòDavidson€County€v.€Rogers,€óó184€Tenn.€327,€198€S.W.2d€812€(1947).€€It€isÏclear€in€the€record€that€there€are€legitimate€aesthetic€concerns€to€be€considered€in€the€placementÏof€convenience€storage€facilities,€and€there€is€possible€conflict€between€convenience€storageÍoperations€and€other€general€commercial€uses.€€It€was€reasonable€for€the€City€of€Franklin€toÏdeal€specifically€and€particularly€with€convenience€storage€operations.€€Courts€should€notÏsubstitute€their€judgment€for€that€of€local€government€officials€on€the€appropriateness€ofÏlegislation€and€should€not€invalidate€an€ordinance€unless€it€is€illegal,€arbitrary€or€capricious.€ÏòòSee€Whitemore€v.€Brentwood€Planning€Commission,€óó835€S.W.2d€11€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€final€issue€raised€by€the€Relators€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€failing€toÏconclude€that€the€Relators€relied€to€their€detriment€on€the€then€existing€zoning€scheme€and€spentÏsums€for€construction€or€would€have€spent€sums€for€construction€had€they€been€allowed€to€doÏso.€€Rights€under€an€existing€ordinance€do€not€vest€until€"substantial€construction€or€substantialÏliabilities€are€incurred€relating€directly€to€construction."€€òòSCA€Chemical,€óó636€S.W.2d€at€437.€ÏThe€expenditures€by€the€Relators€were€not€for€construction€but€were€for€pre„constructionÏplanning,€for€legal€fees,€and€for€art€work€associated€with€the€litigation.€€Substantial€expensesÏwere€for€the€time€spent€by€Monday€on€the€project,€which€was€certainly€not€for€construction€andÏis€a€questionable€expense€item€because€it€is€not€out€of€pocket€and€is€valued€as€if€it€were€expertÏappraisal€work,€which€it€was€not.€€€The€Relators€assert€€that€€they€€would€€have€€expended€Ïadditional€€sums€but€€for€the€refusal€of€the€FMPC€to€approve€their€€site€€plan,€but€under€ÏTennessee€caselaw,€estoppel€results€from€expenditures€that€were€made€and€not€fromÏexpenditures€being€thwarted.€€Construction€had€not€commenced€and€therefore€the€doctrine€ofÏestoppel€should€not€be€applied€here.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€initial€deferral€of€action€on€the€Relators'€site€plan€was€within€the€FMPC'sÏdiscretion€and€was€in€all€respects€reasonable€and€lawful,€regardless€of€whether€Ordinance€94„16€was€actually€pending€at€the€time.€€The€Relators€had€no€vested€right€to€continuation€of€theÏpreviously€existing€€zoning€scheme,€given€the€fact€that€construction€had€not€commenced.€€ByÏthe€time€of€the€second€deferral€of€action€by€the€FMPC,€on€April€26,€1994,€Ordinance€94„16Ïwas€actually€pending,€and€the€FMPC€had€that€additional€basis€for€deferring€action€on€theÍRelators'€site€plan.€€There€was€nothing€unlawful,€wrongful,€unreasonable,€or€discriminatoryÏabout€the€second€deferral.€€Based€on€the€record€in€the€case,€the€FMPC€acted€entirely€for€theÏbenefit€of€their€community€and€not€from€any€other€motive.€€The€new€zoning€law€was€passedÏwithin€a€reasonable€period€of€time,€and€the€new€ordinance€was€constitutional.€€The€trial€court€isÏtherefore€affirmed€in€its€refusal€to€issue€a€writ€of€mandamus€and€dismissal€of€the€complaint€€forÏmandamus€on€declaration€of€invalidity€of€the€city€ordinance.ÌÓÓÌAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àLEE€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌ_________________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌÌÌÌ_________________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGEÌÌÌ