ÿWPC¾ …#†VUNÜ %* 00U:L 4† š 0L© D3õ 0J( 0Tr 0^Æ 0h$ 0rŒ 0|þ 0†z 0 1uU, 0d1U,•U>ÁU*ÿU*)B)SDC| AM¿ B Ù)v~vÓ€ 0NS 0@¡ AOáÆ0 08ö 0D. D/r B¡˜HP LaserJet 4/4MHPPCL5E,,,,0ÙP gU–×X·^GŸ¬G (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(ô%$¡¡ÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÑÑÑÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XhXXXÔÓÓÑ7€hXXdðXXdð7Ñ, øð AZ‹"Arial Regular3x2øð 3|xà> ÿÿ$Small Circleððà0 à%%%%'ÿÿdxd2 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< Œ 9p`(Arial< Œ 9p`(Times% Line 7 d""""7Border 1dd€-#Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d ÏÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€d#ÑÝ  ÝÝ ƒ"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òDecemberÏ29,Ï1995ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò>‡¦$"Small Circleð"ðà0  à("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3ç$¢¢Ý ƒ%!ÝÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑѰÑѰÑÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XøòXXXÔÓÓÑ7€…XXdìXXdì7ÑÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€X„d&ÓÑ#€Xd#ÑÔ€ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ ÔÓÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÝ  ÝÒ ° ÒÒ ° ÒÓ  ÓÑ ° ÑÑ ° ÑÓÓò òÑ7€…XXdìXXdì7Ñà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OFÏAPPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€ATÏJACKSONÌòòà@ à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌÌHUGHIE€RAGAN,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àà àò ò)€€MadisonÏChancery€No.ó ó€ò ò48296ó óÌà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€€Appeal€No.Ï02A01„9501„CH„00007Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJACK€HALL€and€MADISON€COUNTYà à)ÌBOARD€OF€ZONING€APPEALS,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìó óà àDefendants/Appellees.à àà àò ò)ÌÌÌó óà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THEÏCHANCERY€COURT€OF€MADISON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€JACKSON,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOE€C.ÏMORRIS,€CHANCELLORÌÙ€€ÙßL€$&#;+'h|Q` à. `€€LßÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òHUGHIE€RAGANÌó óJackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌÌò òHUGH€HARVEY,€JR.Ìó óJackson,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Defendants/AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERS,€SP.€J.ó óà àÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThis€appeal€arises€from€the€Madison€County€Building€Commissioner€Jack€Hall'sÏÑ7€…XXdìXXdì7Ñ(hereinafter€"Commissioner")€denial€of€a€building€permit€to€the€Appellant,€HughieÏRagan.€€Mr.€Ragan€appealed€the€Commissioner's€decision€to€the€Board€of€AdjustmentsÏand€Zoning€Appeals€(hereinafter€"Board")€and€the€Madison€County€Chancery€Court,Ïboth€of€which€affirmed€the€Commissioner's€decision.€€€Appellant€filed€a€timely€notice€ofÏappeal€with€this€Court.€€ÌÌà àThe€facts€of€this€case€are€as€follows.€€A€fire€occurred€at€Appellant's€propertyÏlocated€at€733€Boone€Lane,€Madison€County,€Tennessee.€€On€June€23,€1993,€theÏCommissioner€issued€an€order€to€prevent€any€repair€work€from€being€done€on€saidÏproperty€because€no€building€permit€had€been€issued.€€Building€permits€are€requiredÏwhenever€the€Commissioner€finds€that€more€than€$100€in€repairs€are€needed.€€TheÏAppellant€thereafter€requested€a€building€permit€and€it€was€denied.€€TheÍCommissioner€denied€Appellant's€request€based€upon€the€following:€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à1)€The€structure,€as€determined€by€the€BuildingÏCommissioner,€was€destroyed€by€fire€beyond€the€75%Ïthreshold€allowed€for€nonconforming€structures.€€Once€thisÏthreshold€is€reached,€the€structure€can€not€be€rebuilt€orÏrepaired.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à2)€The€structure€has€not€received€proper€approval€from€theÏHealth€Department€regarding€the€septic€system.€€No€permitÏcan€be€issued€for€a€structure€which€has€not€been€givenÏseptic€system€approval€by€the€Health€Department.€€TheÏHealth€Department€has€stated€that€no€approval€will€be€givenÏfor€this€structure€since€it€is€located€in€a€flood€hazard€area.€ÌÌ€ÌÓÓà àOn€appeal€to€the€Board,€the€Appellant€argued€that€the€house€was€not€75%Ïdamaged€and€therefore€should€retain€its€status€as€a€nonconforming€structure;€that€theÏhouse€had€a€proper€septic€tank;€and€that€the€property€qualified€as€a€businessÏestablishment€subject€to€a€statutory€exemption€from€zoning€regulations.€€€The€BoardÏaffirmed€the€Commissioner's€denial€of€Appellant's€request€for€a€building€permit.€€OnÏappeal€to€this€Court,€Appellant€makes€the€additional€arguments€that€(1)€the€Board'sÏdecision€was€improper€because€none€of€the€witnesses€before€the€Board€testified€underÏoath€and€(2)€if€the€Board's€decision€was€correct,€Appellant€is€entitled€to€compensationÏbecause€the€Commissioner's€denial€of€a€building€permit€to€Appellant€constitutes€aÏcompensable€taking.ÌÌà àThis€case€comes€before€us€by€a€common€law€writ€of€certiorari.€€T.C.A.€ðð€27„9„101€(1980).€€Thus,€the€scope€of€this€Court's€review€is€limited€to€determining€whetherÏthe€Board€"exceeded€its€jurisdiction€or€acted€fraudulently,€illegally,€or€arbitrarily"€inÏdenying€Appellant€a€building€permit.€€òòSeeóó€òòHedgepath€v.€Nortonóó,€839€S.W.2d€416,€421Í(Tenn.€App.€1992)€(citing€òòHoover€Motor€Express€Co.€v.€R.R.€&€Public€Utilities€Comm'nóó,Ï195€Tenn.€593,€599„600,€261€S.W.2d€233,€236€(1953)).€€€Actions€of€an€administrativeÏagency€which€are€not€supported€by€material€evidence€in€the€record€are€deemedÏarbitrary€and€void.€€òòWatts€v.€Civil€Serv.€Bd.óó,€606€S.W.2d€274,€276„77€(Tenn.€1980),€òòcert.Ïdeniedóó,€450€U.S.€983,€101€S.€Ct.€1519,€67€L.€Ed.2d€818€(1981).€€€In€order€for€this€CourtÏto€uphold€the€Board's€decision,€the€administrative€record€must€contain€"such€relevantÏevidence€as€a€reasonable€mind€might€accept€as€adequate€to€support€a€rationalÏconclusion€and€such€as€to€furnish€a€reasonably€sound€basis€for€the€action€underÏconsideration."€€òòHedgepathóó,€839€S.W.2d€at€421(citing€òòPace€v.€Garbage€Disposal€Dist.óó,Ï54€Tenn.€App.€263,€267,€390€S.W.2d€461,€463€(1965)).€ÌÌ€€à àWe€first€address€Appellant's€contention€that€733€Boone€Lane€is€a€non„conforming€business€establishment€which€is€exempt€from€changes€in€or,€as€in€theÏpresent€case,€the€adoption€of,€zoning€regulations.€€T.C.A.€ðð€13„7„208€provides€inÏpertinent€part:€€ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(2)(b)€In€the€event€that€a€zoning€change€occurs€in€any€landÏarea€where€such€land€area€was€not€previously€covered€byÏany€zoning€restriction€of€any€governmental€agency€of€thisÏstate€or€its€political€subdivisions€.€.€.€then€any€industrial,Ïcommercial€or€business€establishment€in€operation,Ïpermitted€to€operate€under€zoning€regulations€or€exceptionsÏthereto€prior€to€the€zoning€change€shall€be€allowed€toÏcontinue€in€operation€.€.€.€.€ÌÌà8 àà8 à(c)€Industrial,€commercial€or€other€business€establishmentsÏin€operation€and€permitted€to€operate€under€zoningÏregulations€or€exceptions€thereto€in€effect€immediatelyÏpreceding€a€change€in€zoning€shall€be€allowed€to€expandÏoperations€and€construct€additional€facilities€which€involveÏan€actual€continuance€and€expansion€of€the€activities€of€theÍindustry€or€business€which€were€permitted€and€beingÏconducted€prior€to€the€change€in€zoning€.€.€.€.€€No€buildingÏpermit€or€like€permission€for€construction€or€landscapingÏshall€be€denied€to€an€industry€or€business€seeking€toÏexpand€and€continue€activities€conducted€by€that€industry€orÏbusiness€which€were€permitted€prior€to€the€change€inÏzoning€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àà8 à(d)€Industrial,€commercial€or€other€business€establishmentsÏin€operation€and€permitted€to€operate€under€zoningÏregulations€or€exceptions€thereto€immediately€preceding€aÏchange€in€zoning€shall€be€allowed€to€destroy€presentÏfacilities€and€reconstruct€new€facilities€necessary€to€theÏconduct€of€such€industry€or€business€subsequent€to€theÏzoning€change€.€.€.€.€No€building€permit€or€like€permission€forÏdemolition,€construction€or€landscaping€shall€be€denied€toÏan€industry€or€business€seeking€to€destroy€and€reconstructÏfacilities€necessary€to€the€continued€conduct€of€the€activitiesÏof€that€industry€or€business,€where€such€conduct€wasÏpermitted€prior€to€a€change€in€zoning€.€.€.€.ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€(1992€&€Supp.€1994).€€ÌÌà àAppellant€built€the€house€at€733€Boone€Lane€in€1958.€€Madison€County€had€notÏadopted€zoning€regulations€at€that€time.€€€Despite€the€fact€that€the€property€is€rentedÏsolely€as€a€residence,€Appellant€contends€that€the€property€is€zoned€business€since€heÏis€in€theòò€businessóó€of€renting€property.€€€Relying€on€the€provisions€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ððÏ13„7„208,€Appellant€argues€that€his€òòbusinessóó€property€is€exempt€from€zoningÏregulations€adopted€after€the€structure€was€built.€€For€that€reason,€Appellant€concludesÏthat€he€should€be€permitted€to€repair€said€property.Ì€€Ìà àNeither€the€pertinent€provisions€of€the€Tennessee€Code€Annotated€nor€theÏZoning€Resolution€of€Jackson,€Tennessee€Planning€Region€(hereinafter€"ZoningÍResolution")€specifically€define€"residential€use"€or€"business€use."€€Testimony€of€bothÏJev€Vaughan,€Chairman€of€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€and€€Stan€Pilant,€SeniorÏPlanner€for€the€Jackson€Planning€Commission,€indicates€that€property€is€zonedÏaccording€to€the€particular€parcel's€use.€€Additionally,€our€review€of€both€the€residentialÏuse€and€business€use€classifications€set€forth€in€the€Zoning€Resolution€indicates€thatÏresidential€dwellings€are€prohibited€in€all€property€zoned€"business."€€Based€upon€theÏforegoing,€as€well€as€Appellant's€testimony€that€the€property€is€used€solely€as€aÏresidential€rental€unit,€we€find€that€it€is€not€an€exempt€business€establishment€asÏcontemplated€by€T.C.A.€ðð€13„7„208.€€ÌÌà àAppellant€next€contends€that€the€house€at€733€Boone€Lane€was€not€75%Ïdestroyed€by€fire.€€Because€Appellant€built€the€house€at€733€Boone€Lane€beforeÏMadison€County€adopted€the€Zoning€Resolution,€the€property€enjoyed€the€status€of€a€Ïnonconforming€structure,€exempt€from€Zoning€Resolution€requirements.€€However,Ïonce€a€nonconforming€structure€is€damaged€more€than€75%€percent,€it€loses€itsÏnonconforming€status€and€must€comply€with€the€Zoning€Resolution.€€At€his€hearingÏbefore€the€Board,€Appellant's€only€proof€that€the€house€was€not€75%€destroyed€wasÏhis€own€statement€to€that€effect.€€After€reviewing€photographs€of€the€damaged€propertyÏand€considering€the€Jackson€Municipal€Regional€Planning€Commission'sÏrecommendation,€which€supported€the€Commissioner's€denial€of€a€building€permit€toÏAppellant,€the€Board€concluded€that€the€property€was€75%€damaged.€€€Significantly,Ïthe€Board€requested€that€Appellant€produce€an€appraisal€of€the€property's€value€andÏan€estimate€of€the€damages€to€the€house.€€Appellant€failed€to€produce€either€of€theÍrequested€documents.€€€€Based€upon€the€foregoing,€we€conclude€that€€materialÏevidence€in€the€record€supports€the€Board's€decision€.€€€Ìà àÌà àAppellant's€third€contention€is€that,€if€the€733€Boone€Lane€is€subject€to€theÏZoning€Resolution,€the€property€had€an€approved€septic€tank€system€at€the€time€of€theÏfire.€€However,€Appellant€presented€no€evidence€that€the€Madison€County€HealthÏDepartment€(hereinafter€"Health€Department")€ever€issued€a€permit€allowing€a€septicÏtank€to€be€installed€on€the€property.€€€Moreover,€Appellant€testified€that€he€had€aÏconcrete€block€septic€tank€system.€€Concrete€block€septic€tank€systems€are€not€andÏhave€never€been€approved€by€the€Health€Department.€€€We€conclude€that€materialÏevidence€in€the€record€supports€the€Board's€finding€that€Appellant€did€not€have€aÏHealth€Department€sanctioned€septic€tank€system.ÌÌà àIn€his€appeal€before€this€Court,€Appellant€argues€that€the€decision€of€the€BoardÏis€invalid€because€testimony€in€the€Board€hearing€was€not€given€under€oath.€€AppellantÏcites€€various€provisions€of€the€Uniform€Administrative€Procedures€Act€(hereinafterÏ"Act"),€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„101€et.€seq.€(1991),€as€authority€for€his€proposition.€€However,ÏAppellant€fails€to€cite€this€Court€to€T.C.A.€ðð€4„5„106,€which€provides:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àApplication€„„€(a)€The€provisions€of€this€chapter€shall€notÏapply€to€the€military,€the€governor,€the€general€assembly,Ïthe€state€building€commission€or€the€courts,òò€nor€shall€theyÏapply€to€county€and€municipal€boards,€commissions,Ïcommittees,€departments€or€officersóó.€€(Emphasis€added)ÌÌÓÓòòId.óó€(1991).€€ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€Act€does€not€apply€to€the€hearing€at€issue€because€suchÏhearing€was€held€before€a€muncipal€board.€€In€addition,€we€find€no€authority€outsideÏthe€Act€that€would€require€the€Board€to€put€witnesses€under€oath€at€its€hearings.€ÏMoreover,€this€Court€is€not€impressed€with€Appellant's€argument€that€he€wasÏprejudiced€by€the€Board's€failure€to€put€witnesses,€including€Appellant€himself,€underÏoath,€where€Appellant€did€not€earnestly€object€to€the€Board's€procedure€at€the€time€ofÏthe€hearing.€ÌÌà àAppellant€makes€the€alternative€argument€that,€if€the€Board's€decision€wasÏproper,€he€is€entitled€to€compensation€because€the€requirements€of€the€ZoningÏResolution€constitute€a€taking€of€property€without€just€compensation,€in€violation€ofÏU.S.€Const.€amend.€5;€Tenn.€Const.€art.€1,€ðð€8.€€Appellant€claims€that€733€BooneÏLane's€only€viable€use€is€as€residential€rental€property.€€Thus,€Appellant€claims€that€heÏis€entitled€to€compensation€for€the€value€of€the€property€if€he€is€not€permitted€to€rebuildÏthe€house.€€€€ÌÌà àWe€conclude€that€Appellant's€assertion€that€the€Zoning€Resolution€has€deprivedÏAppellant€of€all€reasonable€use€of€his€property€is€without€merit.€€€As€pointed€out€byÏcounsel€for€the€Appellee€during€oral€argument,€Appellant's€land€is€zoned,€and€may€beÏused,€for€agricultural€and€forestry€purposes.€€In€òòDraper€v.€Haynesóó,€567€S.W.2d€462,Ï465€(Tenn.€1978),€the€court€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àà àZoning€and€land„use€ordinances€.€.€.€represent€anÏexercise€of€the€police€power€of€a€municipal€government.Ìà8 àà8 àà àOrdinances€regulating€the€use€and€development€ofÍproperty€are€generally€held€to€lie€within€the€police€power€ofÏmunicipal€corporations,€and€their€adoption,€while€frequentlyÏaffecting€property€values€and€restricting€use€of€property,€hasÏgenerally€not€been€considered€to€amount€to€a€taking€underÏthe€power€of€eminent€domain€or€to€constitute€retrospectiveÏlegislation€within€the€meaning€of€the€state€constitutionÏ(citations€omitted).ÌÓÓÌBoth€the€Health€Department€and€the€Zoning€Resolution€regulations€are€valid€exercisesÏof€Madison€County€and€Jackson's€police€powers.€€Accordingly,€we€hold€that€thoseÏregulations,€which€mandated€the€Commissioner's€denial€of€Appellant's€request€for€aÏbuilding€permit,€do€not€constitute€a€compensable€taking€of€Appellant's€property.ÌÌÌà àBased€upon€the€foregoing,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€chancellor.€€Costs€onÏappeal€are€taxed€to€the€Appellant.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌSUMMERS,€SP.€J.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌà àÌ