WPCX # VUNa % 0Nb 0 w@ 4$ 8 G O 0J 0T 0^s 0h 0r9 0| 0' 0 1u=U, 0dU,BU>nB)DC B AM5U*Cv~ D3mv 0@s AO 0D D/  B;HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ("  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(&y$   - -((2 >$ y!     XTX   `   0   :$;<=e>E?@DAӀKLnnG {3|xLLaidlaw v. Metro - Concurring Opinion (Todd)  ' IB011C20IB011C2 .   2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d-$C << G<  9p`(Arial 9 !  #d#""   ''   YYY FILED'XMarch13,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk  PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@%%%%'dxdStyl{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'\7~dd7    "ԛ@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ MIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLE "ԜL&($;+'h|SP`  `LߛLAIDLAWENVIRONMENTAL )SERVICESOFNASHVILLE,INC., )      ) Plaintiff/Appellant,  )      )VS.      )      )METROPOLITANBOARDOF )HEALTHFORNASHVILLEAND )DAVIDSONCOUNTY,   ) DavidsonChancery      ) No.942747IIIand      )      ) AppealNo.ROBERTORR/SYSCOFOOD ) 01A019507CH00310SERVICESCOMPANY,  )      )and      )      )BRINGURBANRECYCLINGTO )NASHVILLETODAY,   )      ) Defendants/Appellees.  )"@ CONCURRINGOPINION " ThisappealinvolvesthejudicialreviewoftheMetropolitanBoardofHealthsdecisiontoreversethedecisiontotheDirectorofHealthtorenewsixoperatingpermitsforasolidwastedisposalplantlocatedinCockrillBendIndustrialPark.AlthoughIconcurcompletelywiththeresultsofthemajoritysopinion,Iconcurwithonlytwoportionsofitsreasoning. First,Iconcurwiththemajoritysconclusionthattheboardsdecisionmustbereviewedusingthestandardofreviewassociatedwithacommonlawwritofcertiorari.EventhoughTenn.CodeAnn.77105(b)(Supp.1995)requiredtheboardtoconductitsownproceedingssubstantiallyinaccordancewiththecontestedcaseprovisionsoftheUniformAdministrativeAct,thestatutedoesnotalterthetraditionalmethodforseekingjudicialreviewoftheboardsdecision.Thevehicleforthisreviewisthecommonlawwritofcertiorarithatpermitsthereviewingcourttodeterminewhethertheboardsactionwasillegal,inexcessofitsjurisdiction,orarbitraryorcapricious.McCallenv.CityofMemphis,786S.W.2d633,638(Tenn.1990). IalsoconcurwiththeconclusionthattheboardactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslywhenitreversedtheDirectorofHealthsdecisiontorenewLaidlawssixoperatingpermits.Whiletheappealfromthedirectorsdecisionwaspending,thedirectorandtheboardenteredintoaconsentagreementwiththepermitholder.Inreturnforthepermitholdersagreementtospendapproximately$2,679,302toupgradeitsfacility,thedirectorandtheboardagreedthatthepermitholderwouldbedeemedtobeinfullcompliancewithMetropolitanCode10.56.170aslongastheconstructionoftheimprovementstothefacilityremainedonschedule. Therecordshows(1)thatthepermitholdersimprovementswereonschedule,(2)thattheboardsvotetoreversethedirectorsdecisiontorenewtheoperatingpermitsoccurredbeforetheconsentdecreesdeadlineforthecompletionoftheimprovements,and(3)thatthefactsonwhichtheboardsdecisionwasbasedareessentiallythesameincidentscoveredbytheconsentdecree.Underthefactsofthiscase,theboardcertainlyactedarbitrarilybyinducingthepermitholdertoexpend$2.6millionononehandandthenrefusingtograntitoperatingpermitsontheother.      _______________________________      WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE