WPC 4Vj 0(yw@ 0l 0DU 0J 0T 0^7 0h 0r 0|o 0 0q 1u U,v UB % 0d U,N U6z B B) DC AM9U*- D3U><N 0@v~vH AOj 0D0 D/t B~g 3|x($ UUEEDӀ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(Modern<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(Courier New d% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd-&C << G<  9p`(Arial # !  #d##  ((   YYY FILED(X March15,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.(AppellateCourtClerk $$$$'dxd<  9p`(&Times New Roman 2 !#d##   $          # AdamsandCollinsformedapartnershiptojointheirlandstogether,therebycomplyingwiththezoningordinancerequirementthatthelandfillbesituatedon100acres.TheirpartnershipgivesGreenevilleIronandPaper,anunincorporateddivisionofCollinsEnterprises,Inc.,theexclusiverighttousethelandfillandsettippingfees.("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA: T Monaco  BA: T Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &""Xd&#""Xd##        \RA'\7XXdd7L')&;+'h|`  `Lߛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION ̛̜LARRYCARTERandwife,PATSYL.)C/ANO.03A019511CH00393CARTER,A.L.DUCKWORTH,JR., )WILLIAMBEACH,LYMANKING,DEAN)GREENECHANCERYLANDERS,LILLIANPETERS,JAMES)D.KEYandwife,ESTAKEY,GYLE)HON.DENNISH.INMAN,CARTERandwife,BETSYCARTER,)CHANCELLORDOUGFRESHOURandwife,WANDA )FRESHOUR,ROBERTH.CREMINS, )EVERETTEDIXONandwife,CINDY)DIXON,CARLDIXONandwife, )LUCILLEDIXON,ETHELS.  )EDWARDS,CLAUDEDIXONandwife,)ZELMADIXON,andFRANKDUNAWAY)andwife,KATEDUNAWAY,  )      ) PlaintiffsAppellees, )      )v.      )      )BOBBYJOEADAMSandwife,VIOLA)H.ADAMS,COLLINSENTERPRISES,)INC.,andGREENCOUNTY,  )TENNESSEE,    )REVERSED      )AND DefendantsAppellants. )REMANDED̛̜J.RONNIEGREER,Greeneville,forPlaintiffsAppellees.K.KIDWELLKING,JR.,KING&KING,Greeneville,forDefendantsAppellantsBobbyJoeAdamsandwife,ViolaH.Adams,andCollinsEnterprises,Inc.ROGERA.WOOLSEY,Greeneville,forAppellantGreeneCounty,Tennessee.@ OPINION         Franks.J.  InthisactiontheChancellordeclaredinvalidGreeneCountysrezoningofcertainproperties,andtheCountyandtheownersofthepropertyhaveappealed.  Inordertooperateademolitionlandfill,AppellantsAdamsandCollins+Ԝ ,   כ#ԀsoughttochangethezoningontheirlandfromA1(residences,agriculture,certainsmallbusinesses,andlightindustry)toM2(heavyindustry).TheGreeneCountyPlanningCommissiondeniedtherequest,butuponappealtotheGreeneCountyCommission,therezoningwasapprovedbyavoteof16to7.  TheChancelloroverturnedtheCountyCommissionsreclassificationofthelandasindustrial.Hereasoned:0 0 thisisnot...acaseabouttheneedforademolitionlandfillinGreeneCounty,norisitofanyrelevancethatthislandfillisrelativelyinnocuousintermsofdust,noise,orpollution...theissueisnotwhatuseisbeingmadeofthispropertyafterrezoning,butwhatusescouldbemadeofitwithintheM2classification...ifthedefendants,ortheirsuccessorsintitle,shoulddetermineinthefuturetooperateachemicalplantalongsideorinplaceofthedemolitionlandfill,theycoulddosoquitelawfully....ӜOnthegroundsthatitwas withoutlogicfromacomprehensiveplanningstandpoint ,thezoningchangewasdeemed unreasonableandarbitrary andwasdeclaredvoidbytheChancellor.  Zoningbodiesarelegislativeinnatureandthescopeofjudicialreviewfortheiractionsisrestricted.Fallinv.KnoxCountyBoardofCommissioners,656S.W.2d338(Tenn.1983).Courtsmay:0 0 notinterferewiththeexerciseofthezoningpowerandholdazoningenactmentinvalid,unlesstheenactment,inwholeorinrelationtoanyparticularproperty,isshowntobeclearlyarbitrary,capricious,orunreasonable,havingnosubstantialrelationtothepublichealth,safety,orwelfare,orisplainlycontrarytothezoninglaws.Id.,citing82Am.Jur.2dZoningandPlanning338(1976)at9134.  Appellantsarguethatinsteadofusingan unreasonableandarbitrarystandard, theChancellorshouldhaveusedamorerestrictive fairlydebatable standard.Overtime,thestandardsof fairlydebatable,  rationalbasis, and arbitraryandcapricious havebeenusedinterchangeablyandhavecometoholdthesamemeaning.McCallinv.CityofMemphis,786S.W.2d633,641(Tenn.1990).Whichevertermisapplied,thelevelofscrutinyrequiredofthecourtisto refrainfromsubstitutingitsjudgmentforthatofalocalgovernmentalbody...ifanypossiblereasonexistsjustifyingtheaction,itwillbeupheld. Id.at641.   Thequestionofwhetherthereissufficientevidencetosupportthezoningcommissionsactionisaquestionoflaw.Hemontolorv.WilsonCityBoardofZoningAppeals,883S.W.2d613(Tenn.App.1994).Accordingly,appellatereviewisdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectness.T.R.A.P.13.  TheAppelleeneighborsfearthattherezoningwillhaveadetrimentalimpactonthequietandpeacefulnatureofthelargelyagriculturalcommunityandthattheadditionaltrafficwillmaketheroadsunsafe.Theyalsoarguethatthelandfillwillnotservethecountysneedforalandfillbecause,bythetermsofthepartnershipbetweenAdamsandCollins,theuseofthelandfillisgiventoCollinscompanyGreenevilleIronandPaper.  AccordingtothetestimonyoftheCountyExecutive,whopresidedoverthezoningchange,thepurposebehindthechangewasthatthelandfillinuseatthetimewasnearingcapacityandthatanothersitewasneeded.Hestatedthat peoplewerebehinditsimplybecauseourlandfillwasclosing. Whenasked Wasthisissuepresented,fullypresented,orwasithotlycontestedbybothsideswithspeakersonbothsidesforandagainst? heresponded peopledidspeakforandagainst.   ThetestimonyofaCommunityPlannerwiththeTennesseeDepartmentofEconomicandCommunityDevelopmentwasthatthelocationofthelandfillwas acceptable ,andheadded Icertainlyknowalotofotherareasinthecountythatwouldbelessacceptable. Studiesbyanengineeringfirmanalyzedthesiteandsetproceduresforhandlingthewaste,leachate,dust,fires,andpossibleseepageintoundergroundwatersystems.AnEnvironmentalSpecialistfromtheStateDivisionofSolidWasteManagementstatedthatthegeologicalstructureofthelandwassuitableforalandfill(shaleandclayarenoteasilypermeatedbyseepagethatmightenterthegroundwater)andthatthelandfillmettherequirementsofitsStatepermit.Collinstestifiedthatalthoughhiscompanydoeshavetheexclusiverighttousethelandfill,theyplannedonpermittingaccesstootherswhoappliedtothecompany.  GiventheargumentsandevidencebeforetheCountyCommission,theissueofwhetherrezoningwasagoodideaforthecommunitywas fairlydebatable. Accordingly,sincearationalbasiscouldhaveexistedfortheapprovalofthechangeinzoning,theactionisvalid.Fallin.󀀜  TheChancellorreasonedthattherezoningwasvoidbecauseotherobjectionalusesmightoccurontheM2land.However,itwasfortheCountytoconsiderandweightheconcerns,someofwhichweresubsequentlyvoicedbytheChancellor,anddecidewhethertheywantedtomakethiszoningclassification.TheCommissioners,whoknowtheareaandpartiesbest,determinedthattheneedforanewlandfillintheareaoutweighedotherfactorsatissue.Consideredinthislight,theChancellorsubstitutedhisjudgmentforthatoftheCommissionandwereversethejudgment.  ThecauseisremandedtotheTrialCourtfortheentryofanorderdismissingthisaction,withcostsoftheappealassessedtoappellees.      ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:___________________________DonT.McMurray,J.___________________________CliffordE.Sanders,Sr.J.