ÿWPC›( …# V %a 0Ûg 0 NB UN bÞ †æ l mn 0J… 0DÏ 0T g 0^o 0hÍ 0r5 0|§ 0†# 0© 1u9 0d®w@4Rf BuU>’ D3ÐB)DC, 0@o AM¯U*ü.&£Tv÷©m€–v~¥vÓ#! AOö&ÆE' 0D ( D/O( B~(˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ¼(‹(2+Ù$¤¤Ý ƒöy!ÝÓ  ÓÙñÓ ÙÝ  ÝѰ°ÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XRRX¼¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(&öy$¡¡Ó  ÓÙñÓ Ù'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular- ù-hoover v. metro board of zoning - opinion Í 5 ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2" 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)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ DE+›e Ó€*DÒ \ôŒ3|x* d< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman$$$$'ÿÿdxd% Line 7 d++++7Border 1dd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-,Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial $Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€/ÔÔ€/ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€/XÔÌÌMarch€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ™Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóPersons€desiring€to€engage€in€mining€and€extraction€activities€must€first€obtain€aÏconditional€use€permit.€€Metropolitan€¢Govððt£€of€Nashville€&€Davidson€County,€Code€ððððÏ17.24.030,€17.124.010€(Mar.€1995).Ì lÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóSpecifically,€the€trial€court€found€that€Hoover€had€not€met€the€general€requirementsÏthat€the€use€be€ð ðso€designed,€located,€and€proposed€to€be€operated€that€the€public€health,€safetyÏand€welfare€will€be€protectedðð€and€that€the€use€ð ðwill€not€adversely€affect€other€property€in€theÏarea€in€which€it€is€located.ðð€€Metropolitan€¢Govððt£€of€Nashville€&€Davidson€County,€Code€ððÏ17.124.040(A)€&€(B)€(Mar.€1995).€€The€trial€court€also€found€that€the€proposed€quarry€wasÏnot€located€in€an€area€that€is€likely€to€remain€sparsely€populated€during€the€length€of€timeÏquarrying€activity€is€anticipated,€òòseeóó€Metropolitan€¢Govððt£€of€Nashville€&€Davidson€County,ÏCode€ðð€17.124.330(A)€(Nov.€1992),€and€that€the€proposed€reclamation€plan€envisioning€thatÏthe€quarry€would€be€filled€with€water€did€not€meet€the€requirements€of€Metropolitan€€¢Govððt£€ofÏNashville€and€Davidson€County,€Code€ðð€17.124.330(B)(8)€(Nov.€1992).Ì ŸÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThis€court€granted€Hooverððs€motion€for€an€expedited€appeal€on€October€14,€1996.€ÏThe€effect€of€this€order€was€to€submit€the€case€on€briefs.€€This€is€not€an€expedited€civil€appealÏpursuant€to€Tenn.€Ct.€App.€R.€13.€€€Ì vÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóThe€power€is€not€inherent€but€rather€is€delegated€by€the€General€Assembly.€€òòAndersonÏCounty€v.€Remote€Landfill€¢Servs£.,€Inc.,óó€833€¢S.W.2d£€903,€909€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991).Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€)XÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóMetropolitan€¢Govððt£€of€Nashville€&€Davidson€County,€Code€ðð€17.124.020€(Mar.Ï1995)€provides€that€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€must€hold€a€hearing€on€an€application€for€aÏconditional€use€permit€within€sixty€days€after€the€application€is€filed€unless€the€applicantÏwithdraws€the€application€or€requests€a€continuance.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{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 ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€)ÔÔ€)¼ÔÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€øn¼¼ddÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àÔ€)„Ôò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLE̜ـ€ÙßR€.0,A1-j|¦þg` ç `€€@ÿRß›ÌÔ€)¼ÔÌÌó óHOOVER,€INC.,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€ChanceryÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€92„1993„IIIÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌMETROPOLITAN€BOARD€OF€à à)à àAppeal€No.ÌZONING€APPEALS€FORà àà à)à à01A01„9609„CH„00442ÌDAVIDSON€COUNTY,à àà àà à)ÌTENNESSEE,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àDefendant/Appellee.à àà à)ÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€ROBERT€S.€BRANDT,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌòòFor€the€Plaintiff/Appellantóó:à àà àà àà àòòFor€the€Defendant/Appelleeóó:ÌÌThomas€V.€Whiteà àà àà àà àà àà àRobert€H.€Jennings,€Jr.ÌTune,€Entrekin€&€Whiteà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌNashville,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJames€R.€TomkinsÌGeorge€A.€Deanà àà àà àà àà àà àGlasgow€&€VeazeyÌParker,€Lawrence,€Cantrell€&€Deanà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌNashville,€TennesseeÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHerbert€R.€RichÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCarrol€D.€KilgoreÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBranstetter,€Kilgore,ÏStranch€à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà à&€Jenningsà àà àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€TennesseeÌÌÌà@ àÔ€)„Ôò òMODIFIED€AND€REMANDEDó óÌÌÔ€)¼ÔÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÇÑ „ ÑÓ€ÓÔ€)„Ôà@ àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÌÔ€)¼ÔÌà àThis€expedited€appeal€involves€the€efforts€of€a€quarry€operator€to€obtainÏa€conditional€use€permit€to€operate€at€another€location€in€Davidson€County.€ÏThe€operator€filed€a€petition€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÏseeking€judicial€review€of€the€decision€of€the€Metropolitan€Board€of€ZoningÏAppeals€to€deny€a€conditional€use€permit.€€On€the€second€appeal€from€the€trialÏcourt,€this€court€reversed€the€Boardððs€decision€and€remanded€the€case€forÏfurther€proceedings.€€The€trial€court€thereafter€remanded€the€case€to€theÏBoard€with€directions€to€consider€the€operatorððs€application€in€light€of€theÏrecord€at€the€original€hearing€together€with€additional€evidence€of€changedÏconditions€in€the€area€since€the€original€hearing.€€The€operator€asserts€on€thisÏappeal€that€the€trial€court€should€have€ordered€the€Board€to€issue€theÏconditional€use€permit.€€While€the€trial€court€correctly€remanded€the€case€toÏthe€Board€with€directions€to€deliberate€and€make€a€decision,€we€haveÏdetermined€that€it€erred€by€permitting€the€parties€to€introduce€new€evidenceÏonce€the€case€is€remanded€to€the€Board.€€We€have€determined€that€the€BoardððsÏdeliberations€should€be€limited€to€the€evidence€presented€at€the€originalÏhearing.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ó óÌÌà àHoover,€Inc.€operated€a€quarry€near€Nashvilleððs€airport€for€many€years.€ÏAfter€it€was€forced€to€stop€operations€because€of€the€expansion€of€the€airport,ÏHoover€obtained€an€option€to€purchase€a€parcel€of€property€on€MurfreesboroÏRoad€and€applied€to€the€Metropolitan€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€for€aÍconditional€use€permit.× ƒ1 ××  ×€€The€Board€denied€the€application€in€January€1992.€ÏHoover€then€obtained€an€option€for€property€on€¢Nolensville£€Road€and€appliedÏfor€another€€conditional€use€permit€in€April€1992.€€This€application€was€alsoÏdenied€following€a€tumultuous€public€hearing€on€May€28,€1992,€even€though€aÏmajority€of€the€participating€Board€members€stated€at€the€conclusion€of€theÏproof€that€they€believed€that€Hoover€had€met€the€requirements€for€aÏconditional€use€permit.ÌÌà àHoover€filed€a€petition€for€common„law€writ€of€certiorari€in€theÏChancery€Court€for€Davidson€County€seeking€review€of€the€Boardððs€decision.€ÏIn€February€1993,€the€trial€court€remanded€the€case€to€the€Board€for€a€newÏhearing€because€two€Board€members€who€participated€in€the€original€hearingÏwere€disqualified€and€because€the€Board€had€not€made€adequate€findings€ofÏfact€explaining€its€decision.€€In€June€1994,€the€Western€Section€of€this€courtÏvacated€the€trial€courtððs€order€and€remanded€the€case€to€the€trial€court€toÏconsider€Hooverððs€petition€on€its€merits.€€òòHoover,€Inc.€v.€Metropolitan€Bd.€ofÏZoning€Appeals,óó€App.€No.€¢01A01£„9307„CH„00312,€1994€WL€260693,€at€*3Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€June€15,€1994)€(No€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€considered€the€merits€of€Hooverððs€petition€following€theÏremand€and€in€February€1995€entered€an€order€affirming€the€Boardððs€denialÏof€a€conditional€use€permit.€€The€trial€court€specifically€found€that€Hoover€hadÏnot€satisfied€the€general€conditions€and€two€of€the€special€conditions€for€aÍconditional€use€permit€to€conduct€quarrying€activities.× ƒ2 ××  ×€€Hoover€appealed€toÏthis€court€for€the€second€time,€arguing€that€there€was€no€competent€evidenceÏto€support€the€Boardððs€denial€of€the€conditional€use€permit€and€that€the€BoardÏhad€acted€illegally,€arbitrarily,€fraudulently,€and€beyond€its€jurisdiction.€€InÏJanuary€1996,€the€Middle€Section€of€this€court€reversed€the€trial€court€aÏsecond€time.€€òòHoover,€Inc.€v.€Metro€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appeals,óó€924€¢S.W.2d£€900Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1996).ÌÌà àThis€courtððs€last€opinion€contains€three€holdings.€€First,€we€held€thatÏcourts€cannot€determine€whether€an€administrative€decision€is€supported€byÏsubstantial€and€material€evidence€ð ðunless€the€administrative€body€makesÏfindings€of€facts€setting€forth€the€reasons€for€its€decision.ðð€€òòHoover€v.€MetroÏBd.€of€Zoning€Appeals,óó€924€¢S.W.2d£€at€905.€€Second,€we€held€that€the€BoardÏacted€arbitrarily€by€denying€Hooverððs€application€for€a€conditional€use€permitÏwhen€ð ðfour€of€the€five€board€members€present€at€the€public€hearing€expressedÏtheir€beliefs€that€Hoover€had€met€the€legal€conditions€required€to€obtain€theÏconditional€use€permit.ðð€€òòHoover,€Inc.€v.€Metro€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appeals,óó€924Ï¢S.W.2d£€at€905.€€Third,€we€held€that€two€Board€members€ð ðacted€illegally€whenÏthey€told€board€member€Hoover€that€they€would€abstain€if€Hoover€did€notÏresign€from€the€board.ðð€€òòHoover,€Inc.€v.€Metro€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appeals,óó€924Ï¢S.W.2d£€at€907.€€Based€on€these€findings,€we€reversed€the€trial€courtððs€decisionÏand€remanded€the€case€for€further€necessary€proceedings.ÌÌà àAfter€the€case€was€remanded€to€the€trial€court,€the€parties€becameÏembroiled€in€a€dispute€concerning€the€scope€of€our€remand€directions.€ÏHoover€asserted€that€this€courtððs€opinion€required€the€trial€court€to€remand€theÏcase€to€the€Board€with€directions€to€issue€the€conditional€use€permit.€€HooverððsÏadversaries,€on€the€other€hand,€asserted€that€the€trial€court€should€remand€theÏcase€to€the€Board€to€consider€Hooverððs€application€anew€based€on€the€evidenceÏreceived€during€the€May€28,€1992€hearing€and€ð ðupon€any€additional€evidenceÏthat€it€may€receive€when€offered€by€any€party€hereto€or€any€other€personÏentitled€to€offer€evidence.ðð€€The€trial€court€entered€an€order€on€August€5,Ï1996,€remanding€the€case€to€the€Board€to€ð ðconsider€the€case€upon€the€recordÏof€all€the€evidence€heretofore€heard€by€it,€together€with€such€additionalÏevidence€as€may€be€offered€by€any€party€as€to€changed€circumstances€that€haveÏoccurred€since€it€closed€the€record€on€evidence€previously€received€by€it.ðð€ÏHoover€has€appealed€from€this€decision,€and€thus€this€case€is€before€this€courtÏfor€the€third€time.× ƒ3 ××  ×ÌÌà@ àò òII.ó óÌÌà àThis€appeal€concerns€the€scope€of€this€courtððs€earlier€mandateÏremanding€the€case€to€the€trial€court€for€ð ðany€further€necessary€proceedings.ðð€ÏThe€resolution€of€this€dispute€requires€us€to€consider€two€issues.€€The€first€isÏthe€scope€of€relief€in€zoning€cases€when€the€court€finds€that€the€local€agencyððsÏdecision€was€improper.€€The€second€issue€concerns€the€proper€remedy€underÏthe€facts€of€this€case.ÌÌà àZoning€ordinances€and€decisions€represent€an€exercise€of€local€policeÏpower¢× ƒ4 ××  ×£€to€protect€the€health,€safety,€and€welfare€of€its€citizens.€€òòDraper€v.ÏHaynes,óó€567€¢S.W.2d£€462,€465€(Tenn.€1978);€Metropolitan€¢Govððt£€of€NashvilleÏ&€Davidson€County,€Code€ðð€17.04„010€(Oct.€1994)€(stating€that€the€purpose€ofÏthe€zoning€ordinance€is€ð ðto€promote€the€public€health,€safety,€morals,Ïconvenience,€order,€prosperity€and€general€welfare€of€the€present€and€futureÏinhabitants€of€metropolitan€Nashville€and€Davidson€Countyðð).€€Accordingly,Ïthe€courts€are€hesitant€to€interfere€with€zoning€decisions€unless€clearlyÏnecessary,€òò¢McCallen£€v.€City€of€Memphis,óó€786€¢S.W.2d£€633,€641„42€(Tenn.Ï1990);€òò¢Fallin£€v.€Knox€County€Bd.€of€¢Commððrs£,óó€656€¢S.W.2d£€338,€342„43Ï(Tenn.€1983),€and€will€not€substitute€their€judgment€for€that€of€the€localÏofficials.€€òò¢Whittemore£€v.€Brentwood€Planning€¢Commððn£,óó€835€¢S.W.2d£€11,€15Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1992).€€ÌÌà àThe€vehicle€for€reviewing€decisions€of€local€boards€of€zoning€appeals€isÏthe€common„law€writ€of€certiorari.€€òò¢McCallen£€v.€City€of€Memphis,óó€786Ï¢S.W.2d£€at€639.€€This€writ€requires€the€courts€to€determine€whether€the€BoardÏexceeded€its€jurisdiction,€followed€an€unlawful€procedure,€acted€illegally,Ïarbitrarily,€or€fraudulently,€or€acted€without€material€evidence€to€support€itsÏdecision.€€òòHoover€v.€Metro€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appeals,óó€924€¢S.W.2d£€at€904;Ïòò¢Hemontolor£€v.€Wilson€County€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appeals,óó€883€¢S.W.2d£€613,€616Ï(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994).€ÌÌà àThe€common„law€writ€of€certiorari€is€a€supervisory€writ,€that€providesÏthe€courts€with€limited€options€for€dealing€with€error€discovered€in€theÏproceedings€being€reviewed.€€Because€courts€should€avoid€requiring€localÍzoning€authorities€to€take€a€particular€action€except€in€the€most€extraordinaryÏcircumstances,€the€most€common€judicial€remedy€in€zoning€cases€is€to€remandÏthe€case€to€the€zoning€agency€with€instructions€appropriate€to€theÏcircumstances€of€the€case.€€4€Robert€M.€Anderson,€òòAmerican€Law€of€Zoningóó€ððÏ27.39,€at€598€(3d€ed.€1986).€€Rather€than€shouldering€the€local€agencyððsÏresponsibilities,€the€courts€should€insist€that€the€agency€carry€out€its€task€in€anÏappropriate€manner.€€òòSeeóó€òò¢Sanon£€v.€INS,óó€52€F.¢3d£€648,€652€(7th€Cir.€1995);ÏòòRhode€Island€Higher€Educ.€Assistance€Auth.€v.€Secretary,€U.S.€¢Depððt£€of€Educ.,óóÏ929€F.2d€844,€857€(1st€Cir.€1991).€€The€goal€of€a€remand€should€be€to€placeÏthe€parties€and€the€agency€in€the€position€they€would€have€been€in€had€theÏagency€not€acted€improperly.€òòSeeóó€òòGetty€v.€Federal€¢Sav£.€&€Loan€Ins.€Corp.,óóÏ805€F.2d€1050,€1061€(D.C.€Cir.€1986);€òò¢Revelle£€v.€Marston,óó€898€P.2d€917,€921Ï(Alaska€1995).€€ÌÌà àUnder€the€facts€of€this€case,€the€trial€court€correctly€declined€to€directÏthe€Board€to€issue€Hoover€the€conditional€use€permit€it€requested.€€However,Ïin€light€of€the€interests€of€these€parties€and€the€nature€of€the€administrative€andÏjudicial€proceedings€that€have€already€occurred,€we€have€determined€that€theÏmost€appropriate€remedy€is€to€remand€the€case€to€the€Board€with€directions€toÏconduct€a€new€hearing€based€on€the€existing€record€without€the€introduction€ofÏadditional€factual€evidence.€€Ìà àÌà àWe€base€our€decision€on€three€considerations.€€First,€the€May€28,€1992Ïhearing€provided€Hoover€and€all€other€interested€parties€with€a€full€and€fairÏopportunity€to€present€evidence€supporting€the€competing€positions.€ÏReopening€the€record€at€this€late€stage€would€only€give€the€parties€a€secondÏbite€at€the€apple.€€òòSeeóó€òòRoger€Williams€College€v.€¢Gallison£,óó€572€A.2d€61,€62„63Ï(R.I.€1990).€€€€Second,€we€reversed€the€Boardððs€original€decision€not€becauseÍof€defects€in€the€fact„finding€process€or€because€the€record€containedÏinadequate€evidence€to€support€the€Boardððs€decision,€but€rather€because€theÏBoard€did€not€consider€the€evidence€in€a€fair€and€legal€manner.€€Third,Ïrequiring€additional€evidentiary€hearings€would€be€inconsistent€with€theÏunderstanding€implicit€in€Nashvilleððs€zoning€ordinance€that€the€interests€of€theÏpublic€and€of€the€developers€is€best€served€by€the€prompt€consideration€andÏdisposition€of€applications.¢× ƒ5 ××  ×£€€The€outcome€of€proceedings€of€this€sort€shouldÏnot€depend€on€the€partiesðð€financial€resources€or€staying€power.€€òòPatel€v.ÏPlanning€Bd.,óó€609€A.2d€1319,€1324€(N.J.€Super.€Ct.€Law€Div.€1992).ÌÌà àIn€reaching€this€decision,€we€are€mindful€that€five€years€have€elapsedÏsince€the€original€hearing€before€the€Board€and€that€there€may€very€well€haveÏbeen€changes€in€the€property€surrounding€Hooverððs€proposed€quarry€site.€ÏReopening€the€record€to€accept€additional€proof€of€these€changes€will€onlyÏprovide€an€incentive€for€others€to€use€the€judicial€process€to€delay€local€zoningÏdecisions.€Hooverððs€proposal€to€operate€a€quarry€in€the€area€has€been€wellÏknown€and€hotly€debated€for€the€past€five€years,€and€thus€any€developmentÏthat€has€occurred€in€the€area€has€been€undertaken€with€the€understanding€thatÏHoover€might€eventually€receive€the€conditional€use€permit€it€has€been€seekingÏsince€1992.€€Thus,€the€interests€of€the€inhabitants€are€not€being€treated€unfairlyÏby€requiring€the€Board€to€base€its€decision€on€the€evidence€adduced€at€the€MayÏ28,€1992€hearing.ÌÌà@ àò òIII.ó óÌÌà àFor€the€reasons€stated€herein,€we€modify€the€trial€courtððs€orderÏremanding€the€case€to€the€Metropolitan€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€to€provideÏthat€the€Board€should€conduct€a€hearing€and€render€a€timely€decision€onÏHooverððs€application€for€a€conditional€use€permit€based€on€the€record€of€theÏMay€28,€1992€hearing.€€This€hearing€shall€be€conducted€in€a€manner€consistentÏwith€our€earlier€opinion.€€We€¢also£€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€in€equalÏproportions€to€Hoover,€Inc.€and€its€surety€and€to€the€MetropolitanÏGovernment€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à____________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,ÏJUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€P.J.,€M.S.€ÌÌÌ________________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€œ›