ÿWPC ’Ü—º0_È#8„øòÚEOvi°®V,|¼&óÞµÕÅÁtÓåmàW ¡_ë‹ð¬-*Íh>jS'›û¸bìë+ÕuSo´zªµz”*Â8m×£E8‰åxë¶H«Q´ÂÊm{‚åhd¨[§CßÉØþ+B!NA¨°ú+‘Y[CJ!ÏO¨½î–1‚Ì©§ ŠÀÐÒÃï1¶ !VjN%æÙˆ®$n³÷1c W+žbÞ·»9sé\ÍÓµš€ôJŽØìLtlj½Fd4;lƒ*HœÿÙ)°~5õøµïÙU^3§÷C4µri­^b<± ¤lxLbbvZgmHœÇ/;,c¤þZVZ'ôøbùωðÏÍ%sø=B³<Û„!Œ;ÇýOÝ KG!ÆZF®´u¨Ï<ˆ§©‡²HN+S¼5IõD½ü’{½ÞªªžÉQ~Ãñ ˜)Sx¦ ejrpO— Dâ£õvŸ9r·«äD¬46Ú3uŒ¼ iFÐSÝl‹—:ãêû…˜Lü Yͬ¨Ž,R)C—m.}ŽD‚´ŸJcTs±ô-g3ú6pêÝ—.Ž-í.¬èèF/„† 쪹ì8„òUxî`#!@UNa %¯ 0(µwÝ4áõUN NR U :T UNŽ UNÜ UN* 6x 0Å® 0cs ^ Ö â UNè L6 UN‚UNÐUNUNlUNºUNUNVUN¤UNòUN@Ž BUN­UNûUNIUN— må4üüüüüUN000000~~~~~~~~UN†-ÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔÔ AQÆR 0D 0D\ 0D   D3ä˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡{Z=',,,,,,3|x(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular,–ûyAZ‹"Arial Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ,Ý ƒ[¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€ XŒ.XXXÔÔ€ <ìX XŒ.ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ XŒ.X <ìÔÐ  ÐÌSeptember€1,€1999ÌÌCecil€Ô_ÔCrowsonÔ_Ô,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAxÔó ó(u(2d$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ XŒ.XXXÔÓÓà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó("J˜$Ô€XMXXXÔòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóób‘!' H(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular BÝ ƒÕä$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ XÿãXXXÔÓÓà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€XdØXX XÿãÔSection€13„3„401(4)(B)€provides€the€exact€definition€of€subdivision€in€the€context€ofÐ ° Ðregional€planning.€€Section€11.504€of€the€Charter€of€the€Metropolitan€Government€of€NashvilleÐ œì Ðand€Davidson€County€grants€to€the€MPC€all€the€powers,€duties€and€responsibilities€granted€toÐ ˆØ Ðboth€municipal€and€regional€planning€commissions€under€the€state€zoning€and€planningÐ tÄ Ðenabling€statute.€€It€is€clear€that€Mr.€Thompson's€property,€which€was€in€Davidson€County€wasÐ `° Ðwithin€the€jurisdiction€of€the€MPC.€€òòSeeóó€Subdivision€Regs€of€the€metro€Planning€Comm'n€1„3Ð L œ Ð(1997).€€Thus,€the€issues€in€this€case€involve€the€definition€of€subdivision€and€other€pertinentÐ 8 ˆ Ðstatutes€found€under€the€municipal€regulations€in€part€3€of€Title€13€of€Tennessee€CodeÐ $ t ÐAnnotated.(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular d(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ *Ý ƒÕä$ÝÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ XÿãXXXÔÓÓà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€+XdØXX XÿãÔMr.€Thompson€certainly€had€the€right€to€such€an€appeal.€€Section€17.40.180€of€theÐ ° ÐZoning€Regulations€of€the€Metropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€address€the€powers€of€theÐ œì ÐBoard€of€Zoning€Appeals€and€provides€as€follows:Ð ˆØ Ðà8 Ø àA.€€Administrative€Appeals.€€Pursuant€to€Section€13„7„207(1),€Tennessee€CodeÐ tÄ ÐAnnotated,€the€board€shall€hear€and€decide€appeals€from€any€order,€requirement,Ð `° Ðdecision€or€determination€made€by€the€zoning€administrator€or€the€urbanÐ L œ Ðforester€in€carrying€out€the€enforcement€of€this€zoning€code,€whereby€it€isÐ 8 ˆ Ðalleged€in€writing€that€the€zoning€administrator€or€the€urban€forester€is€in€errorÐ $ t Ðor€acted€arbitrarily.Ð `Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐòòSee€also€Robisonóó,€1992€WL€205268€at€*5.€€(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular(¶ÍY Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑZ[\]_Cþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó 'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼@»XXÔÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ-¼äd†X®œÔ‘X°œX-ÓÑ  ÑÑ€:úÑÔ_ÔWILLIAM€H.€THOMPSON,€JR.,€à ® à)Ð ° Ðßx€Y_B2.jzÆ#`  `€€@ÿEºå` 8ttxPòÂð # xßand€COUNTRY€MAID€FARMS,à ® à)Ð Â ÐINCORPORATED,€a€Tennesseeà ® à)Ð Ô$ ÐCorporation,à Ä àà  àà t àà ® à)Ð æ6 Ðà  àà l àà Ä àà  àà t àà ® à)ÌÓ?¼8d‚X®,X¼äd†X®œÔ‘X?Óà  àPlaintiffs/Appellants,à ® à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð  Z Ðà  àà ® à)à  à01„A„01„9808„CH„00438Ð  l Ðv.à  àà ® à)à  àà  àÐ . ~ Ðà  àà ® à)à  àDavidson€ChanceryÐ @  ÐDEPARTMENT€OF€CODESà ® à)à  àNo.€98„71„IIÐ R¢  ÐADMINISTRATION,€à ® à)Ð d´  ÐMETROPOLITAN€GOVERNMENTà ® à)Ð vÆ  ÐOF€NASHVILLE€and€DAVIDSONà ® à)Ð ˆØ  ÐCOUNTY,à ® à)à  àÐ šê  Ðà  àà ® à)Ìà  àDefendant/Appellee.à ® à)Ð ¾ ÐÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€CAROL€L.€McCOY,€CHANCELLORÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌÌDAVID€O.€HUFFÌWashington€Square,€Suite€204Ì214€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201Ìà  àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTSÌÌÌTHOMAS€G.€CROSSÌMetropolitan€AttorneyÌ204€Metropolitan€CourthouseÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37201Ìà  àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANT/APPELLEEÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDEDÌÌÓ  ÓÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ F;–63 ÐÑ:úÑâ :âÑ8€dØXXdìdÈ8Ñâ :âÑ  ÑÔ_ÔÌÓ  ÓÔ€„ =„»¼8„ÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ Â ÐÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÌÔ€ „ =„„„ =ÔÔ€ ¼8„»„ „ =Ôà  àThis€case€involves€the€refusal€of€the€Metropolitan€Department€of€CodesÐ 2 ‚ ÐAdministration€("the€Department")€to€issue€building€permits€to€theÐ Í  Ðpetitioner/appellant€landowner.€€Planning€to€divide€and€sell€his€land,€theÐ h ¸ Ðpetitioner€made€preparations€to€subdivide€this€land€pursuant€to€the€Department'sÐ S  Ðadvice€on€how€to€avoid€regulation€by€the€Metropolitan€Planning€CommissionÐ žî  Ð("MPC").€€However,€due€to€a€new€interpretation€of€existing€statutory€law,€theÐ 9‰  Ðpetitioner's€preparations,€once€completed,€were€no€longer€adequate€and€theÐ Ô$ ÐDepartment€deemed€that€the€land€must€undergo€review€before€the€MPC€as€aÐ o¿ Ðsubdivision.€€Consequently,€the€zoning€administrator€of€the€Department€deniedÐ  Z Ðthe€petitioner€the€building€permits€and€the€petitioner€brought€suit€claiming€firstÐ ¥õ Ðthat€the€division€of€land€was€not€a€"subdivision"€as€that€term€is€defined€byÐ @ Ðstatute.€€Furthermore,€the€petitioner€contended€that€the€zoning€administrator'sÐ Û+ Ðapplication€of€the€newly„interpreted€law€to€him€violated€his€constitutional€rightsÐ vÆ Ðto€equal€protection€and€due€process€and€effected€against€him€the€application€ofÐ a Ða€retrospective€law.€€In€addition,€the€appellant€claimed€that€the€DepartmentÐ ¬ü  Ðshould€be€equitably€estopped€from€refusing€to€issue€the€building€permits.€€TheÐ G!—" Ðtrial€court€granted€the€Department's€motion€for€involuntary€dismissal€of€theÐ â"2$ Ðpetitioner's€case.€€We€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€on€all€issues.€Ð }$Í& ÐÌÓ  ÓÔ‡9¼8„»» ¼8„ÔI.Ô#† ¼8„»»9¼8„‰#ÔÐ ³'#* ÐÓ}ÓÔ‡ ¼‚2»» ¼8„ÔÌà  àÔ#† ¼8„»» ¼‚2ò#ÔÔ€ ¼8„»» ¼8„ÔPetitioner€William€Thompson€is€the€sole€owner€of€Petitioner€CountryÐ ã*3&. ÐMaid€Farms€which€consists€of€two€tracts€of€land€in€north€Davidson€County.€€HeÐ ~,Î'0 Ðhas€utilized€this€land€over€the€years€as€a€dairy€farm.€€In€1995,€Mr.€ThompsonÐ .i)2 Ðdecided€to€develop€this€land€into€residential€lots€for€the€purpose€of€selling€them.€Ð ´/+4 ÐÌÌà  àMr.€Thompson€initially€met€with€John€Bracey€of€the€MPC€who€told€himÐ …4Õ/: Ðthat€if€the€lots€were€more€than€five€acres,€the€MPC€would€not€interfere.€€OnÐ  6p1< ÐDecember€14,€1995,€Mr.€Thompson€and€his€friend€Dan€Barge,€an€engineer,€metÐ »7 3> Ðwith€Sonny€West,€the€zoning€administrator€for€the€Department,€to€discuss€theÐ V9¦4@ Ðdivision€of€this€property.€€Mr.€West€advised€the€petitioner€that€if€each€lot€hadÐ ° Ðfive€or€more€acres€of€land,€fifty€feet€of€public€road€frontage€per€lot,€and€no€waterÐ K› Ðor€utility€extensions,€the€petitioner€would€receive€building€permits.€€In€otherÐ æ6 Ðwords,€if€these€criteria€were€met,€Mr.€Thompson€would€not€have€to€obtain€theÐ  Ñ ÐMPC's€approval€to€subdivide€his€property.€€On€four€occasions€in€1996,€Mr.€WestÐ  l Ðconfirmed€his€advice,€three€times€over€the€phone€and€once€in€person.€€Ð ·   ÐÌà  àMr.€West's€testimony€was€in€accord€with€Mr.€Thompson's€regarding€theÐ í=  Ðadvice€given€Mr.€Thompson€at€the€December€14,€1995€meeting€and€thereafter.€Ð ˆØ  ÐHe€clarified€that€he€told€Mr.€Thompson€what€would€be€required€to€remainÐ #s Ðoutside€of€MPC€jurisdiction.€€Mr.€West€testified€that€his€office€had€taken€€thisÐ ¾ Ðsame€legal€position€with€everyone€who€inquired€up€until€the€time€that€the€lawÐ Y© Ðwas€clarified€by€an€informal€opinion,€issued€on€March€28,€1997€by€the€MetroÐ ôD ÐLegal€Department.€€He€stated€that€since€his€office€became€aware€of€the€newÐ ß Ðinterpretation€of€the€law€by€the€informal€opinion,€it€had€not€issued€any€permitsÐ *z Ðto€people€who€were€not€in€compliance€with€the€law€as€re„interpreted€by€thisÐ Å Ðinformal€opinion.Ð `°  ÐÌà  àIt€is€not€disputed€that€after€receiving€the€initial€advice€from€Mr.€West,€Mr.Ð –!æ$ ÐThompson€began€the€process€of€€preparing€his€land€for€development€whichÐ 1#& Ðlasted€for€the€next€18€months.€€He€prepared€a€declaration€of€restrictive€covenantsÐ Ì$ ( Ðand€maintenance€agreement,€an€access€easement€and€a€declaration€of€sanitaryÐ g&·!* Ðsewer€and€sewer€service€easement€and€had€each€recorded€at€the€Register's€office.€Ð (R#, ÐHe€obtained€legal€street€and€postal€addresses€for€the€lots.€€He€purchased€waterÐ )í$. Ðtaps€for€the€lots.€€He€had€a€road€constructed.€€He€contracted€with€NES€to€installÐ 8+ˆ&0 Ðtelephone€poles.€€In€addition,€Mr.€Thompson€made€physical€improvements€to€theÐ Ó,#(2 Ðland.€€Mr.€Thompson€testified€that€as€of€December€31,€1997,€he€had€spent€aboutÐ n.¾)4 Ð$88,795€on€developing€this€property.€€Ð  0Y+6 ÐÌà  àAfter€completion€of€this€process€in€November€of€1997,€Mr.€ThompsonÐ ?3.: Ðtook€the€recorded€deeds€to€Mr.€West€to€obtain€the€building€permits€at€which€timeÐ Ú4*0< ÐMr.€West€advised€him€that€the€Department€could€no€longer€issue€the€permits.€Ð u6Å1> ÐAs€stated,€the€Department's€change€of€position€was€the€result€of€an€informalÐ 8`3@ Ðmemorandum€opinion€issued€on€March€28,€1997€by€a€staff€member€of€Metro'sÐ «9û4B ÐDepartment€of€Law.€€In€this€opinion,€the€legal€department€opined€that€priorÐ ° Ðzoning€administration€practice€was€not€consistent€with€the€law.€€In€pertinentÐ K› Ðpart,€the€informal€opinion€concluded€that€the€division€of€land€into€lots,Ð æ6 Ðregardless€of€size,€does€constitute€a€subdivision€pursuant€to€Tennessee€CodeÐ  Ñ ÐAnnotated€sections€13„3„401(4)(B)€and€13„4„301(4)(B)€if€any€new€utilityÐ  l Ðextensions€(e.g.,€water,€sewer,€electric€power,€or€cable)€or€new€road€constructionÐ ·   Ðis€necessary.€€Hence,€subdivision€regulations€would€not€apply€if€each€plannedÐ R¢  Ðlot€has€the€required€frontage€along€and€direct€driveway€access€to€an€existingÐ í=  Ðpublic€street€and€will€obtain€utilities€only€through€individual€service€linesÐ ˆØ  Ðconnecting€directly€to€existing€mains.€€However,€where€proposed€divisions€ofÐ #s Ðland€show€access€from€new€lots€to€a€public€street€through€a€new€road€or€commonÐ ¾ Ðeasement€or€new€utility€lines€serving€more€than€one€lot,€the€statute€mandatesÐ Y© Ðsubdivision€review.Ð ôD ÐÌà  àMr.€Thompson€testified€that€he€would€never€have€begun€development€ofÐ *z Ðhis€property€had€he€been€advised€initially€that€it€would€be€necessary€to€complyÐ Å Ðwith€subdivision€regulations€as€this€would€not€have€been€a€profitable€venture.€Ð `°  ÐMr.€Thompson€had€spent€approximately€$89,000€on€the€property€at€the€time€ofÐ ûK" Ðtrial.€€He€testified€that,€in€the€wake€of€the€new€interpretation,€the€improvementsÐ –!æ$ Ðwill€not€have€enhanced€the€value€of€the€property€unless€he€completes€theÐ 1#& Ðdevelopment€process.€€He€estimated€that€it€would€take€another€$200,000€to€bringÐ Ì$ ( Ðthe€land€into€subdivision€compliance€according€to€the€original€plan.€€Mr.Ð g&·!* ÐThompson€testified€that€he€can€not€even€graze€cattle€on€the€property€in€itsÐ (R#, Ðpresent€state€as€he€had€been€able€to€before€making€the€changes.Ð )í$. ÐÌà  àWalter€Davidson,€the€engineer€who€calculated€the€cost€estimates€ofÐ Ó,#(2 Ðpreparing€Mr.€Thompson's€property€in€different€ways,€testified€that€it€wouldÐ n.¾)4 Ðhave€cost€Mr.€Thompson€approximately€$300,000€more€to€develop€a€public€roadÐ  0Y+6 Ðmeeting€the€standards€in€the€subdivision€regulations€rather€than€the€private€roadÐ ¤1ô,8 Ðthat€was€already€developed.€€He€testified€in€detail€as€to€the€reasons€for€thisÐ ?3.: Ðincreased€cost.€He€agreed€that€a€public€road€was€more€durable€and€safe.€€It€wasÐ Ú4*0< ÐMr.€Davidson's€opinion€that€in€order€to€comply€with€subdivision€regulations,Ð u6Å1> ÐMr.€Thompson€would€have€to€spend€$2000€or€$3000€more€per€lot€and€only€getÐ 8`3@ Ð$1000€more€for€the€purchase€price€of€each€lot.Ð «9û4B ЇÌà  àMr.€Thompson€testified€that€after€he€was€denied€the€building€permits€byÐ K› ÐMr.€West,€he€appealed€to€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€and€sent€a€letter€toÐ æ6 ÐTerrance€Cobb€of€the€Metropolitan€Codes€Department.€€Mr.€Cobb€responded€byÐ  Ñ Ðcalling€Mr.€Thompson€at€home€and€explaining€that€he€would€look€into€theÐ  l Ðmatter;€€however,€he€later€told€Mr.€Thompson€that€he€could€not€help€him.€€ThereÐ ·   Ðwas€never€a€hearing€held€before€the€Board€of€Zoning€Appeals€and€the€recordÐ R¢  Ðbefore€us€today€was€formed€in€the€chancery€court.Ð í=  ÐÌà  àMr.€Thompson€filed€a€"Petition€for€Writ€of€Certiorari,€and€for€Mandamus,Ð #s Ðand€for€Declaratory€Judgment"€in€the€Davidson€County€Chancery€court.€€In€thisÐ ¾ Ðpetition,€he€claimed€that€the€Department's€refusal€to€issue€him€the€buildingÐ Y© Ðpermits€is€illegal,€arbitrary€and€capricious€in€that€the€change€in€the€Department'sÐ ôD Ðlong„standing€policy€and€practice€came€after€the€approval€of€Mr.€West€and€withÐ ß Ðno€prior€notice€to€Mr.€Thompson.€€This,€Mr.€Thompson€argued,€constitutes€aÐ *z Ðviolation€of€his€constitutional€rights,€specifically€the€rights€of€equal€protectionÐ Å Ðand€due€process€as€guaranteed€by€both€the€state€and€federal€constitutions.€€InÐ `°  Ðaddition,€Mr.€Thompson€asserted€that€the€Department's€refusal€to€issue€theÐ ûK" Ðpermits€constitutes,€in€practice€and€application,€a€retrospective€law€violative€ofÐ –!æ$ ÐArticle€1,€Section€20€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution.€€Finally,€Mr.€Thompson'sÐ 1#& Ðpetition€asserted€that€he€had€relied€on€the€prior€approval€of€the€Department€toÐ Ì$ ( Ðhis€detriment.€€Ð g&·!* ÐÌà  àAfter€the€petitioners€presented€their€case€in€chief,€the€trial€court€dismissedÐ )í$. Ðthe€action€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€41.02(2).€€From€the€bench,€the€courtÐ 8+ˆ&0 Ðstated€its€reasoning€as€follows:€€€"regardless€of€the€Department's€practice,€theÐ Ó,#(2 Ðlaw€is€and€has€been€that€those€in€[the€petitioners']€position€must€comply€with€theÐ n.¾)4 Ðstatutory€requirements€for€a€subdivision."€€The€court€found€that€cases€cited€byÐ  0Y+6 Ðthe€petitioners€to€support€the€equitable€estoppel€argument€were€distinguishable.€Ð ¤1ô,8 ÐThe€court€then€taxed€the€costs€against€the€petitioners.€€Ð ?3.: ÐÌÓ  ÓII.Ð u6Å1> ÐÓî7ÓÌà  àAs€a€preliminary€matter,€we€must€determine€what€type€of€proceeding€Mr.Ð «9û4B ÐThompson€brought€below.€€Mr.€Thompson€went€to€the€correct€person€in€theÐ ° ÐDepartment€of€Codes€Administration€for€the€issuance€of€€building€permits€whichÐ K› Ðwas€Sonny€West,€the€zoning€administrator.€€After€being€denied€the€permits,€heÐ æ6 Ðprotested€the€denial€to€Terrance€Cobb€in€the€same€department€who€ultimatelyÐ  Ñ Ðtold€him€that€Sonny€West€was€the€final€authority.€€When€asked€if€he€appealedÐ  l ÐMr.€West's€decision,€Mr.€Thompson€testified€that€he€did€appeal€to€the€Board€ofÐ ·   ÐZoning€Appeals.€€However,€from€the€record,€it€is€evident€that€the€Board€ofÐ R¢  ÐZoning€Appeals€never€heard€the€case.€€Apparently,€this€lawsuit€in€the€chanceryÐ í=  Ðcourt€was€filed€simultaneously€with€the€appeal€to€the€Board.€€A€writ€of€certiorariÐ ˆØ  Ðdid€issue€from€the€chancery€court€to€Mr.€Cobb€which€ordered€him€"to€make,Ð #s Ðcertify€and€transmit€to€this€Court€the€entire€record€of€the€proceedings€before€theÐ ¾ ÐDepartment€of€Codes€relative€to€its€decision€to€deny€petitioners€herein€theÐ Y© Ðbuilding€permits€requested€as€more€fully€set€out€in€the€Petition€for€Writ€ofÐ ôD ÐCertiorari."€€However,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€from€any€proceeding€in€theÐ ß ÐDepartment€of€Codes€nor€any€indication€that€any€proceeding€took€place€whichÐ *z Ðwould€have€been€the€basis€for€such€a€record.€€Ð Å ÐÓù€ÓÌÓ€‘>Óà  àMr.€Thompson's€complaint€was€in€the€form€of€a€petition€for€writ€ofÐ „ Ô" Ðcertiorari,€for€writ€of€mandamus€and€for€declaratory€proceeding.€€In€this€petition,Ð "o$ Ðhe€sought€a€writ€of€certiorari,€a€declaration€that€the€Department's€refusal€to€issueÐ º# & Ðthe€building€permits€was€arbitrary€and€capricious,€an€order€directing€Mr.€WestÐ U%¥ ( Ðto€issue€the€building€permits,€and€a€declaration€that€the€Department'sÐ ð&@"* Ðinterpretation€of€the€ordinance€was€an€unenforceable€retrospective€law.€€WithoutÐ ‹(Û#, Ðreference€to€the€type€of€proceeding€or€the€attendant€standard€of€review,€the€trialÐ &*v%. Ðcourt€dismissed€the€case€after€hearing€the€petitioners'€proof.€€Ð Á+'0 ÐÌà  àThe€distinction€between€the€alternative€procedures€available€for€theÐ ÷.G*4 Ðjudicial€review€of€actions€taken€by€either€county€or€municipal€authorities€is€bestÐ ’0â+6 Ðsummarized€by€the€following€excerpt€from€Tennessee€Jurisprudence:Ð -2}-8 ÐÓ€Óà8  àðð€4.€€Actions.€„„€Generally.€„„€An€action€for€declaratory€judgement,Ð È3/: Ðrather€than€a€petition€for€certiorari,€is€the€proper€remedy€to€beÐ Ú4*0; Ðemployed€by€one€who€seeks€to€invalidate€an€ordinance,€resolutionÐ ì5<1< Ðor€other€legislative€action€of€a€county,€city€or€other€municipalÐ þ6N2= Ðlegislative€authority€enacting€or€amending€zoning€legislation.€.€.€.€Ð8`3> ü! ü! ÐÐ "9r4? Ðà8  àThe€remedy€of€certiorari€will€continue€to€be€the€proper€remedy€forÐ ° Ðone€who€seeks€to€overturn€a€determination€of€a€board€of€zoningÐ Â Ðappeals.€€This€distinction€in€remedies€is€made€because€theÐ Ô$ Ðdeterminations€made€by€a€board€of€zoning€appeals€areÐ æ6 Ðadministrative€determinations,€judicial€or€quasi„judicial€in€nature,Ð øH Ðand€are€accompanied€by€a€record€of€the€evidence€produced€and€theÐ  Z Ðproceedings€had€in€a€particular€case,€whereas€the€enactment€ofÐ  l Ðordinances€or€resolutions,€creating€or€amending€zoning€regulations,Ð . ~ Ðis€a€legislative,€rather€than€an€administrative€action€and€is€notÐ @  Ðordinarily€accompanied€by€a€record€of€evidence,€as€in€the€case€ofÐ R¢  Ðan€administrative€hearing.Ðd´  ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€Ó26€òòTennessee€Jurisprudence€óóZoning€ðð€4,€p.€232€(1993);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòHoover,€Inc.€v.Ð ˆØ  ÐMetropolitan€Bd.€of€Zoning€Appealsóó,€955€S.W.2d€52,€54€(Tenn.€App.€1997)Ð #s Ð("The€vehicle€for€reviewing€decisions€of€local€boards€of€zoning€appeals€is€theÐ ¾ Ðcommon-law€writ€of€certiorari.").Ð Y© ÐÌà  àThus,€administrative€determinations,€judicial€and€quasi„judicial€in€nature,Ð ß Ðwhich€are€accompanied€by€a€record€of€the€evidence€produced€and€theÐ *z Ðproceedings€had€are€properly€reviewed€by€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€òòFallin€v.€KnoxÐ Å ÐCounty€Bd.€of€Com'rsóó,€656€S.W.2d€338,€342€(Tenn.€1983)€(determining€that€anÐ `° Ðaction€for€declaratory€judgment€was€proper€where€€plaintiff€sought€to€invalidateÐ ûK Ða€resolution€of€the€county€board€of€commissioners€purporting€to€amend€a€zoningÐ –!æ  Ðordinance).€€It€is€well€established€that€the€decision€to€or€not€to€grant€a€buildingÐ 1#" Ðpermit€is€an€administrative€determination.€€òòHarrell€v.€Hamblen€CountyÐ Ì$ $ ÐQuarterly€Courtóó,€526€S.W.2d€505,€509€(Tenn.€App.€1975)€("The€issuing€ofÐ g&·!& Ðpermits€has€often€been€held€to€be€an€administrative€or€ministerial€act€and€theÐ (R#( Ðperson€charged€with€the€duty€of€issuing€permits€must€follow€literally€theÐ )í$* Ðprovisions€of€the€ordinance.")€€In€another€case,€our€supreme€court€quoted€a€well„Ð 8+ˆ&, Ðknown€treatise€as€follows:Ð Ó,#(. ÐÓ€Óà8  àMunicipal€legislative€bodies€may€reserve€to€themselves,€where€theyÐ n.¾)0 Ðdo€so€by€an€ordinance€containing€a€rule€or€standard€to€govern€them,Ð €/Ð*1 Ðthe€power€to€grant€or€deny€licenses€or€permits.€€€This€may€be€doneÐ ’0â+2 Ðin€zoning€matters,€where€it€is€not€contrary€to€a€state€zoning€orÐ ¤1ô,3 Ðenabling€act,€and€where€the€zoning€ordinance€likewise€containsÐ ¶2.4 Ðsufficient€standards€to€govern€the€municipal€council.€€€Thus,€aÐ È3/5 Ðzoning€ordinance€vesting€in€the€municipal€council€the€power€toÐ Ú4*06 Ðdetermine€whether€a€building€permit€should€be€granted€...€isÐ ì5<17 Ðregarded€as€administrative,€rather€than€legislative€in€character.Ðþ6N28 ü! ü! ÐÌòòÓ€ÓMcCallen€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€786€S.W.2d€633,€639€(Tenn.€1990)€(quoting€8AÐ "9r4: ÐE.€McQuillin,€òòThe€Law€of€Municipal€Corporationsóó,€ðð€25.217€at€160-61(3d€ed.Ð ° Ð1986)).€€Ð K› ÐÌà  àIn€the€instant€case,€the€nature€of€the€decision€below,€the€denial€of€aÐ  Ñ Ðbuilding€permit,€indicates€that€the€appropriate€means€of€review€is€the€commonÐ  l Ðlaw€writ€of€certiorari.€€However,€the€decision€was€not€appealed€to€the€Board€ofÐ ·   ÐZoning€Appeals׃&×Ý ƒJ˜ÝÔ€¼8„»» ¼8„ÔòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€and€did€not€come€up€to€the€chancery€court€accompanied€by€aÐ R¢  Ðrecord.€€Since€Mr.€Thompson€failed€to€exhaust€his€administrative€remedies€byÐ í=  Ðappealing€the€decision€of€the€zoning€administrator€to€the€Board€of€ZoningÐ ˆØ  ÐAppeals,€he€can€not€now€file€a€petition€for€a€writ€of€certiorari.€€òòSee€Robison€v.Ð #s ÐMetropolitan€Government,óó€No.€01„A„01„9105„CH„00178,€1992€WL€205268Ð ¾ Ð(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€Ð Y© ÐÌÔ‡ ¼‚2»»¼8„Ôà  àÔ#†¼8„»» ¼‚2¹V#ÔÔ€ ¼8„»»¼8„ÔIn€light€of€the€fact€that€Mr.€Thompson€abandoned€his€appeal€to€the€BoardÐ ß Ðof€Zoning€Appeals€thereby€precluding€review€by€certiorari,€the€appropriateÐ *z Ðavenue€by€which€this€matter€can€be€resolved€is€a€declaratory€judgement€pursuantÐ Å Ðto€section€29„14„103€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€€Mr.€Thompson's€petition€in€theÐ `°  Ðchancery€court€included€a€request€that€the€court€issue€a€declaratory€judgmentÐ ûK" Ðdeclaring€"the€refusal€to€issue€building€permits€as€illegal,€arbitrary€andÐ –!æ$ Ðcapricious,€it€being€in€totally€contrary€of€long„standing€Department€policy€andÐ 1#& Ðpractice€and€in€violation€of€petitioners'€constitutional€rights€of€equal€protectionÐ Ì$ ( Ðand€due€process€of€laws."€€As€we€have€established,€a€declaratory€judgment€is€notÐ g&·!* Ðthe€proper€means€for€reviewing€a€zoning€administrator's€decision€forÐ (R#, Ðarbitrariness€or€capriciousness.€€However,€the€constitutionality€of€law€can€beÐ )í$. Ðdetermined€by€a€declaratory€action.€€òòSeeóó€òòIndustrial€Dev't€Bd.€v.€First€U.S.€Corp.óó,Ð 8+ˆ&0 Ð407€S.W.2d€457,€219€Tenn.€156€(1966).€€In€addition,€there€is€authority€for€thisÐ Ó,#(2 Ðcourt€to€issue€a€declaratory€judgment€on€the€issue€of€whether€the€division€andÐ n.¾)4 Ðsale€of€certain€property€constitutes€a€subdivision€under€the€Tennessee€Code.€€òòSeeÐ ° ÐLoftin€v.€Langsdonóó,€Ô€¼8„»» ¼8„Ô813€S.W.2d€475€Ô€¼8„»»¼8„Ô(Tenn.€App.€1991).Ð K› ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.Ð  Ñ ÐÓÛ]ÓÔ€¼8„»»¼8„ÔÌà  àAs€a€declaratory€action,€the€first€issue€Ô€¼8„»»¼8„Ôis€whether€the€division€of€Mr.Ð ·   ÐThompson's€property€does€indeed€fall€within€the€definition€of€a€subdivision€suchÐ R¢  Ðthat€local€subdivision€review€is€mandatory.€€Section€13„4„301(4)(B)׃×Ý ƒJ˜ÝÔ€¼8„»»¼8„ÔòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€of€theÐ í=  ÐTennessee€Code€provides€that€"'[s]ubdivision'€means€.€.€.€the€division€of€a€tractÐ ˆØ  Ðor€parcel€of€land€into€two€(2)€or€more€lots,€sites,€or€other€divisions€requiring€newÐ #s Ðstreet€or€utility€construction€.€.€.€for€the€purpose,€whether€immediate€or€future,Ð ¾ Ðof€sale€or€building€development,€and€includes€resubdivision€and€whenÐ Y© Ðappropriate€to€the€context,€relates€to€the€process€of€resubdividing€or€to€the€landÐ ôD Ðor€area€subdivided."€€€The€informal€opinion€from€the€office€of€the€Metro€LegalÐ ß ÐDepartment€specifically€addressed€a€particular€division€of€land€known€as€a€"flagÐ *z Ðdevelopment"€where€each€lot€has€driveway€access€to€a€public€road€but€onlyÐ Å Ðthrough€a€shared€easement€which€is€common€to€all€of€the€lot€owners.€€€TheÐ `°  Ðinformal€opinion's€conclusion€was€that€"[t]he€division€of€land€into€tracts€of€fiveÐ ûK" Ðacres€or€greater€where€access€to€public€streets€and€public€utilities€will€beÐ –!æ$ Ðprovided€along€a€newly€constructed€or€improved€private€or€shared€drive€orÐ 1#& Ðeasement€falls€within€the€definition€of€a€'subdivision'"€as€quoted€above€fromÐ Ì$ ( Ðsection€13„4„301(4)(B).Ð g&·!* ÐÌà  àAt€oral€argument,€Mr.€Thompson's€attorney€conceded€that€the€informalÐ )í$. Ðopinion€was€correct.€€He€contends€however€that€the€proposed€division€of€hisÐ 8+ˆ&0 Ðproperty€does€not€fall€within€the€definition€of€"subdivision"€as€clarified€in€thatÐ Ó,#(2 Ðopinion.€€We€disagree.€€In€focusing€in€his€argument€on€the€fact€that€the€divisionÐ n.¾)4 Ðof€his€property€did€not€require€new€public€water€or€sewer€utility€construction,Ð  0Y+6 ÐMr.€Thompson€misses€the€point€of€the€informal€opinion.€€For€purposes€of€Mr.Ð ° ÐThompson's€proposed€division€of€land,€the€relevant€part€of€the€informal€opinionÐ K› Ðmodified€the€prior€interpretation€of€the€statute€as€to€the€question€of€whatÐ æ6 Ðconstitutes€a€"new€street,"€not€what€constitutes€"new€utility€construction."€€ThatÐ  Ñ Ðopinion€determined€that€the€construction€of€a€private€driveway/street€whichÐ  l Ðserved€as€a€common€easement€in€a€"flag€development"€qualified€as€a€"newÐ ·   Ðstreet"€for€purposes€of€the€subdivision€definition.€€There€is€no€dispute€that€theÐ R¢  Ðdevelopment€proposed€by€Mr.€Thompson€is€a€flag€development€with€a€privateÐ í=  Ðdriveway/street€easement€through€which€all€lots€are€reached.€€Therefore,€we€canÐ ˆØ  Ðonly€conclude€that€this€proposed€division€amounts€to€a€subdivision€as€definedÐ #s Ðby€the€Tennessee€Code.Ð ¾ ÐÌà  àMr.€Thompson's€second€contention€is€that€even€if€a€proposed€divisionÐ ôD Ðcomes€within€section€13„4„301(4)(B)'s€definition,€it€does€not€necessarily€followÐ ß Ðthat€the€local€subdivision€regulations€apply.€€He€argues€that€the€state€statute€isÐ *z Ðan€enabling€statute€which€permits€the€local€governing€body,€the€MPC,€€to€createÐ Å Ðthe€subdivision€regulations€it€deems€necessary,€and€the€MPC€has€the€prerogativeÐ `°  Ðto€not€require€that€certain€divisions€of€land€be€burdened€with€the€localÐ ûK" Ðsubdivision€regulations.€€Mr.€Thompson€insists€that€the€definition€ofÐ –!æ$ Ð"subdivision"€in€the€MPC's€subdivision€regulations€is€more€narrow€than€that€inÐ 1#& Ðthe€code€and€does€not€encompass€his€proposed€division.Ð Ì$ ( ÐÌà  àWe€cannot€agree€with€Mr.€Thompson's€assessment€of€the€law.€€TennesseeÐ (R#, Ðlaw€assigns€full€responsibility€for€the€process€of€subdivision€regulation,Ð )í$. Ðdevelopment,€application€and€administration€to€regional€and€municipal€planningÐ 8+ˆ&0 Ðcommissions.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13„4„303€(1992).€€The€law€is€clear€that€if€theÐ Ó,#(2 Ðstatutory€definition€of€"subdivision"€applies€to€a€division€of€land,€then€approvalÐ n.¾)4 Ðof€the€MPC€is€necessary€before€a€subdivision€plan€can€be€recorded.€€The€codeÐ  0Y+6 Ðprovides€as€follows:Ð ¤1ô,8 ÐÓ€Óà8  à(a)€From€and€after€the€time€when€the€planning€commission€of€anyÐ ?3.: Ðmunicipality€shall€have€adopted€a€master€plan€which€includes€atÐ Q4¡/; Ðleast€a€major€street€plan,€or€shall€have€progressed€in€its€masterÐ c5³0< Ðplanning€to€the€stage€of€the€making€and€adoption€of€a€major€streetÐ u6Å1= Ðplan,€and€shall€have€filed€a€certified€copy€of€such€major€street€planÐ ‡7×2> Ðin€the€office€of€the€county€register€of€the€county€in€which€theÐ ™8é3? Ðmunicipality€is€located,€ò òno€plat€of€a€subdivision€of€land€lyingÐ «9û4@ Ðwithin€the€municipality€shall€be€filed€or€recorded€until€it€shallÐ ° Ðhave€been€submitted€to€and€approved€by€the€planningÐ Ä Ðcommission€and€such€approval€entered€in€writing€on€the€platÐ Ø( Ðby€the€secretary€of€the€commission.Ðì< ü! ü! Ðó óÌÓ€ÓTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13-4-302€(1992);€òòsee€alsoóó€ðð€13-3-402€(articulating€a€similarÐ  b Ðprohibition€for€county€registers€with€respect€to€recording€subdivision€plats€forÐ ­ ý Ðpurposes€of€regional€planning).€€Subdivision,€as€used€in€this€statute,€is€definedÐ H ˜  Ðby€section€13„4„301(4)(B).Ð ã3  ÐÌà  àThis€court's€opinion€in€òòLoftin€v.€Langsdon€óósupports€our€conclusion€thatÐ i  Ðdivisions€of€land€which€fall€within€the€code's€definition€of€"subdivision"€mustÐ ´ Ðbe€submitted€to€the€MPC€for€approval.€€813€S.W.2d€475€(Tenn.€App.€1991).€Ð OŸ ÐThere,€a€landowner€petitioner€made€major€improvements€to€his€land€inÐ ê: Ðpreparation€for€the€division€and€sale€of€lots.€€òòId.óó€at€476.€€The€local€director€ofÐ …Õ Ðcommunity€development€noticed€the€lots€for€sale€in€the€newspaper€and€contactedÐ  p Ðthe€landowner€to€advise€him€that€he€could€not€proceed€without€approval€fromÐ »  Ðthe€planning€commission.€€òòId.óó€€The€landowner€then€commenced€an€action€in€theÐ V¦ Ðchancery€court€asking€that€court€for€a€declaratory€judgment€that€the€division€ofÐ ñA Ðhis€property€did€not€constitute€a€subdivision€under€section€13„3„401(4)(B)€andÐ Œ Ü! Ðthus€did€not€come€under€regulation€by€the€planning€commission.€€òòId.óó€at€477.€Ð '"w# ÐLooking€to€rules€of€statutory€interpretation,€the€court€found€that€the€landowner'sÐ Â#% Ðactions€relating€to€the€road€and€utility€improvements€on€the€land€placed€himÐ ]%­ ' Ðwithin€the€subdivision€statute.€€òòId.óó€at€479„80.€€The€issue€in€òòLoftinóó€hinged€uponÐ ø&H") Ðwhat€it€meant€for€new€street€or€utility€construction€to€be€"required."€€However,Ð “(ã#+ Ðimplicit€in€the€court's€reasoning€was€that€once€it€was€found€that€new€street€orÐ .*~%- Ðutility€construction€was€"required"€thus€placing€a€division€within€the€ambit€ofÐ É+'/ Ðsection€13„3„401(4)(B),€that€division€would€come€under€regulation€by€the€MPC.Ð d-´(1 ÐÔ‡ ¼‚2»»¼8„ÔÓ  ÓÌÔ#†¼8„»» ¼‚2X}#ÔÔ€¼8„»»¼8„ÔIV.Ð ”0ä+5 ÐÌÓw}Óà  àWe€next€address€the€constitutionality€of€applying€the€law,€as€newlyÐ Ê3/9 Ðinterpreted€by€the€informal€opinion,€to€the€division€of€Mr.€Thompson's€property.€Ð e5µ0; ÐMr.€Thompson€argues€in€effect€that€the€enforcement€of€this€law€against€himÐ 7P2= Ðviolates€his€rights€to€equal€protection,€due€process€and€freedom€fromÐ ›8ë3? Ðretrospective€laws.€€We€disagree,€finding€that€none€of€Mr.€Thompson'sÐ ° Ðconstitutional€rights€have€been€compromised€by€applying€the€law€to€him.Ð K› ÐÌÌà  àTurning€first€to€the€equal€protection€challenge,€we€find€that€Mr.Ð  l ÐThompson€has€failed€to€show€that€he€has€been€treated€differently€from€thoseÐ ·   Ðpersons€similarly€situated.€€òòSee€Ô€¼8„»»¼8„ÔEvans€v.€Steelmanóó,€970€S.W.2d€431,€435€(Tenn.Ð R¢  Ð1998)Ô‡ ¼‚2»»¼8„Ô€Ô#†¼8„»» ¼‚2¥#ÔÔ€¼8„»»¼8„Ô(citing€òòTennessee€Small€School€Sys.€v.€McWherteróó,€851€S.W.2d€139,€153Ð í=  Ð(Tenn.1993)€("The€concept€of€equal€protection€guarantees€that€persons€similarlyÐ ˆØ  Ðsituated€shall€be€treated€alike.").€€€In€fact,€the€testimony€at€trial€was€to€the€effectÐ #s Ðthat,€prior€to€the€issuance€of€the€informal€opinion,€others€seeking€buildingÐ ¾ Ðpermits€under€facts€akin€to€those€of€this€case€were€not€required€to€submit€toÐ Y© Ðsubdivision€review.€€Significantly,€after€the€informal€opinion€was€issued,€anyoneÐ ôD Ðseeking€a€permit€in€the€same€situation€has€been€required€to€undergo€subdivisionÐ ß Ðreview.€€Mr.€West's€uncontroverted€testimony€was€that€certain€developers€hadÐ *z Ðbeen€required€to€subject€their€divisions€of€property€to€subdivision€review€in€theÐ Å Ðmidst€of€development,€after€construction€was€well€under€way.€€He€testified€ofÐ `°  Ðone€instance€where,€while€the€department€did€not€retract€the€building€permitsÐ ûK" Ðwhich€already€had€been€issued,€it€refused€to€issue€any€more€until€theÐ –!æ$ Ðdevelopment€went€before€the€MPC€for€review€which€resulted€in€the€developerÐ 1#& Ðbeing€made€to€rebuild€a€road.Ð Ì$ ( ÐÌà  àLikewise,€Mr.€Thompson€has€not€shown€that€he€has€been€Ô€¼8„»»¼8„Ôdeprived€ofÐ (R#, Ðconstitutional€due€process.€€Ô€¼8„»»¼8„ÔMr.€Thompson's€claim€is€apparently€a€substantiveÐ )í$. Ðrather€than€a€procedural€due€process€claim:€he€does€not€contend€that€theÐ 8+ˆ&0 Ðdepartment€could€not€deny€the€building€permits€without€first€according€him€fairÐ Ó,#(2 Ðnotice€and€hearing.€€Rather,€Mr.€Thompson€maintains€that€he€could€notÐ n.¾)4 Ðconstitutionally€be€denied€the€permits€at€all.€€He€thus€asserts€that€he€obtained€aÐ  0Y+6 Ðcategorical€substantive€due€process€right€to€building€permits€once€he€had€soughtÐ ¤1ô,8 Ðand€followed€the€advice€of€the€department€to€secure€such€permits.€€òòSee€Ô€¼8„»»¼8„ÔHaskinsÐ ?3.: Ðv.€City€of€Chattanoogaóó,€877€S.W.2d€267,€269€(Tenn.€App.€1993)€òò(óóciting€òòCharlesÐ Ú4*0< Ðv.€Baesleróó,€910€F.2d€1349,€1352-53€€(6th€Cir.1990)).€€We€disagree€with€Mr.Ð u6Å1> ÐThompson's€substantive€due€process€challenge.€€Ð 8`3@ ÐÐ «9û4B ÐÔ€!¼8„»»¼8„Ôà  à"Substantive€due€process€'affords€only€those€protections€"so€rooted€in€theÐ ° Ðtraditions€and€conscience€of€our€people€as€to€be€ranked€fundamental."€'€"€Ð K› ÐòòÔ€"¼8„»»!¼8„ÔHaskinsóó,€877€S.W.2d€at€269€(citing€òòCharlesóó,€910€F.2d€at€1352-53);€òòsee€MichaelÐ æ6 ÐH.€v.€Gerald€D.óó,€491€U.S.€110,€109€S.Ct.€2333,€2341-42,€2345,€105€L.Ed.2d€91Ð  Ñ Ð(1989).€The€threshold€question€for€a€substantive€due€process€claim€is€whetherÐ  l Ðthe€claimant€has€a€property€interest€entitled€to€constitutional€protection.€€In€orderÐ ·   Ðfor€a€right€to€be€entitled€to€constitutional€protection,€it€must€be€more€than€aÐ R¢  Ðunilateral€expectation€or€an€abstract€need€or€desire.€€The€property€interest€mustÐ í=  Ðbe€created€by€an€independent€source,€and€the€person€claiming€the€right€mustÐ ˆØ  Ðdemonstrate€a€legitimate€claim€of€entitlement€to€it.€€òòSee€Board€of€Regents€v.Ð #s ÐRothóó,€408€U.S.€564,€577,€92€S.€Ct.€2701,€2709,€33€L.E.2d€548€(1972).€€In€theÐ ¾ Ðinstant€case,€Mr.€Thompson€does€not€have€a€property€interest€in€the€zoningÐ Y© Ðadministrator's€erroneous€interpretation€of€state€law.€€Such€a€right€could€not€beÐ ôD Ðderived€from€an€independent€source€because€state€law€„€the€very€independentÐ ß Ðsource€involved€„€requires€him€to€obtain€approval€of€his€subdivision.Ð *z ÐÌà  àIfÔ% € Ô€a€fundamental€right€is€not€involved,€"the€test€for€determining€whetherÐ `°  Ða€statute€comports€with€substantive€due€process€is€whether€the€legislation€bearsÐ ûK" Ð'a€reasonable€relation€to€a€proper€legislative€purpose'€and€is€'neither€arbitrary€norÐ –!æ$ Ðdiscriminatory.'"€€€òòNewton€v.€Coxóó,€878€S.W.2d€105,€111€(Tenn.€1994)€(citingÐ 1#& ÐòòNebbia€v.€New€Yorkóó,€291€U.S.€502,€537,€54€S.Ct.€505,€516,€78€L.Ed.€940€(1934)Ð Ì$ ( Ðand€òòNational€R.R.€Passenger€Corp.€v.€Atchison,€Topeka€&€Santa€Fe€Ry.€Co.óó,€470Ð g&·!* ÐU.S.€451,€105€S.Ct.€1441,€84€L.Ed.2d€432€(1985)).€€To€reiterate,€the€challengeÐ (R#, Ðhere€is€not€to€the€reinterpretation€of€the€statute€in€and€of€itself,€but€rather€to€itsÐ )í$. Ðapplication€to€Mr.€Thompson.€€€As€noted€in€our€discussion€of€Mr.€Thompson'sÐ 8+ˆ&0 Ðequal€protection€issue,€the€application€of€this€newly€interpreted€law€to€Mr.Ð Ó,#(2 ÐThompson's€division€of€land€was€neither€arbitrary€nor€discriminatory.€€Ð n.¾)4 ÐMoreover,€the€application€of€this€law,€as€newly€interpreted,€bears€a€reasonableÐ  0Y+6 Ðrelation€to€a€proper€legislative€purpose€in€regulating€subdivisions,€the€GeneralÐ ¤1ô,8 ÐAssembly's€desire€to€"provide€for€the€harmonious€development€of€theÐ ?3.: Ðmunicipality€and€its€environs,€for€the€coordination€of€streets€within€subdivisionsÐ Ú4*0< Ðwith€other€existing€or€planned€streets€or€with€the€plan€of€the€municipality€or€ofÐ u6Å1> Ðthe€region€in€which€the€municipality€is€located,€for€adequate€open€spaces€forÐ 8`3@ Ðtraffic,€recreation,€light€and€air,€and€for€a€distribution€of€population€and€trafficÐ «9û4B Ðwhich€will€tend€to€create€conditions€favorable€to€health,€safety,€convenience€andÐ ° Ðprosperity."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€13-4-303(a)€(1992);€òòsee€Loftin€v.€Langsdonóó,€813Ð K› ÐS.W.2d€475,€479€(Tenn.€App.€1991)€(noting€that€"[t]he€purpose€of€PlanningÐ æ6 ÐCommission€regulations€dealing€with€road€construction€is€to€insure€that€theÐ  Ñ Ðroads€are€built€in€a€manner€such€as€will€protect€the€health,€safety,€and€welfare€ofÐ  l Ðthe€citizens.€.€.€.€[I]t€is€obvious€that€the€intent€of€the€legislature€was€thatÐ ·   Ðroadways€traveled€by€the€general€public€be€safe.").Ð R¢  ÐÌ€à  àMr.€Thompson's€final€constitutional€argument€involves€the€prohibitionÐ ˆØ  Ðagainst€the€imposition€of€a€retrospective€law€in€violation€of€Article€1,€ðð€20€of€theÐ #s ÐTennessee€Constitution.€This€section€provides€"[t]hat€no€retrospective€law,€orÐ ¾ Ðlaw€impairing€the€obligations€of€contracts,€shall€be€made."€€Article€1,€ðð€20€doesÐ Y© Ðnot€forbid€every€retroactive€law.€€Rather,€for€purposes€of€this€constitutionalÐ ôD Ðprovision,€the€term€"retrospective€laws"€has€been€defined€by€the€TennesseeÐ ß ÐSupreme€Court€as€those€laws€"which€take€away€or€impair€vested€rights€acquiredÐ *z Ðunder€existing€laws€or€create€a€new€obligation,€impose€a€new€duty,€or€attach€aÐ Å Ðnew€disability€in€respect€of€transactions€or€considerations€already€passed."€Ð `°  ÐòòMorris€v.€Grossóó,€572€S.W.2d€902,€907€(Tenn.€1978);€òòsee€also€Owens€v.Ð ûK" ÐTruckstops€of€Am.óó,€915€S.W.2d€420,€427€(Tenn.€1996).€€Mr.€Thompson€arguesÐ –!æ$ Ðhere€that€the€Department's€action€imposes€new€duties€and€new€obligations€onÐ 1#& Ðhim€which€did€not€exist€when€Mr.€West€advised€him€that€his€project€did€not€fallÐ Ì$ ( Ðwithin€the€regulatory€domain€of€the€MPC.€€Ð g&·!* ÐÌà  àWhile€it€is€true€that€compliance€with€the€new€interpretation€of€the€statuteÐ )í$. Ðdemands€greater€obligations€on€the€part€of€Mr.€Thompson,€it€does€not€do€so€inÐ 8+ˆ&0 Ðthe€context€of€a€transaction€which€has€already€passed.€€In€other€words,€while€Mr.Ð Ó,#(2 ÐThompson€was€advised€of€the€previous€law,€he€was€not€nor€could€not€have€beenÐ n.¾)4 Ðguaranteed€that€this€would€be€the€law€forever.€€Certainly€before€the€permits€wereÐ  0Y+6 Ðgranted€and€the€buildings€constructed,€there€was€no€transaction.€€Significantly,Ð ¤1ô,8 Ðalong€with€any€others€who€desire€to€divide€and€sell€their€land€in€the€wake€of€theÐ ?3.: Ðnew€interpretation,€Mr.€Thompson€can€still€do€so€as€long€as€he€brings€hisÐ Ú4*0< Ðdivision€into€compliance€with€the€MPC's€subdivision€regulations.€Ô‡ ¼‚2»»"¼8„ÔÐ u6Å1> ÐÔ#†"¼8„»» ¼‚2µ¤#ÔÔ‡ ¼‚2»»"¼8„ÔÌÓ  ÓÔ#†"¼8„»» ¼‚2 ¥#ÔÔ€#¼8„»»"¼8„ÔV.Ð ¥9õ4B ЇÓ,¥Óà  àÔ€$¼8„»»#¼8„ÔLastly,€we€turn€to€Mr.€Thompson's€contention€that€principles€of€equitableÐ ° Ðestoppel€bar€the€MPC€from€applying€the€law,€as€newly€interpreted,€to€hisÐ K› Ðproposed€division€of€land.€€The€courts€are€clear€that€"[p]ublic€agencies€are€notÐ æ6 Ðsubject€to€equitable€estoppel€or€estoppel€in€pais€to€the€same€extent€as€privateÐ  Ñ Ðparties€and€very€exceptional€circumstances€are€required€to€invoke€the€doctrineÐ  l Ðagainst€the€State€and€its€governmental€subdivisions."€€òòBledsoe€County€v.Ð ·   ÐMcReynoldsóó,€703€S.W.2d€123,€124€(Tenn.€1985);€€òòPaduch€v.€City€of€JohnsonÐ R¢  ÐCityóó,€896€S.W.2d€767,€772€(Tenn.€1995).€€After€a€review€of€the€case€law,€theÐ í=  Ðcourt€in€òòBledsoe€County€óóobserved€"that€in€those€Tennessee€cases€where€estoppelÐ ˆØ  Ðwas€applied,€or€could€have€been€applied,€the€public€body€took€affirmative€actionÐ #s Ðthat€clearly€induced€a€private€party€to€act€to€his€or€her€detriment,€asÐ ¾ Ðdistinguished€from€silence,€non-action€or€acquiescence.€"€€òòBledsoe€Countyóó,€703Ð Y© ÐS.W.2d€at€125.€€Ð ôD Ðà  àThe€supreme€court's€opinion€in€òòPaduchóó€is€instructive€as€to€what€action€byÐ ß Ða€public€body€amounts€to€"inducement."€€That€opinion€arose€out€of€the€defendantÐ *z Ðcity's€refusal€to€issue€to€the€plaintiff€landowners€building€permits€for€theÐ Å Ðconstruction€of€buildings€on€their€land€until€they€paved€a€portion€of€a€roadÐ `°  Ðaccessing€the€property.€€òòPaduchóó,€896€S.W.2d€at€768.€€After€being€given€thisÐ ûK" Ðultimatum,€the€landowners€paved€the€road€at€their€own€expense€and€the€cityÐ –!æ$ Ðissued€the€building€permits.€€òòId.óó€€However,€the€landowners€brought€suit€seekingÐ 1#& Ðin€part€to€recover€the€money€they€had€spent€paving€what€they€alleged€was€aÐ Ì$ ( Ðpublic€street.€€òòId.óó€€Despite€the€fact€that€the€city€wrongfully€conditioned€theÐ g&·!* Ðbuilding€permits€upon€the€landowners€paving€the€street,€the€supreme€court€foundÐ (R#, Ðthat€the€landowners€were€not€affirmatively€induced€to€improve€the€public€street.€Ð )í$. ÐòòId.óó€at€773.€€In€other€words,€the€city's€action€in€telling€the€landowners€that€theyÐ 8+ˆ&0 Ðneeded€to€pave€the€street€to€procure€a€building€permit€did€not€amount€toÐ Ó,#(2 Ðinducement.€€Ð n.¾)4 ÐÌà  àThis€court€has€held€that€the€type€of€inducement€necessary€to€imposeÐ ¤1ô,8 Ðestoppel€on€a€governmental€agency€is€that€which€leads€to€an€implied€contractÐ ?3.: Ðbetween€a€party€and€the€governmental€agency€or€causes€the€party€to€relinquishÐ Ú4*0< Ða€cause€of€action.€€òòElizabethton€Hous.€and€Dev.€Agency,€Inc.€v.€Priceóó,€844Ð u6Å1> ÐS.W.2d€614,€618€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€In€òòPriceóó,€the€defendant€landlord€defendedÐ 8`3@ Ða€suit€initiated€against€her€by€the€local€public€housing€agency€(PHA)€forÐ «9û4B Ðrecovery€of€funds€which€the€PHA€felt€the€landlord€had€wrongfully€acceptedÐ ° Ðfrom€the€PHA.€€The€PHA€claimed€that€the€landlord€had€accepted€money€fromÐ K› Ðthe€PHA€after€allegedly€violating€the€PHA's€rules.€€The€landlord,€on€the€otherÐ æ6 Ðhand,€argued€that€a€PHA€employee€had€assured€her€that€her€actions€wereÐ  Ñ Ðpermissible€and€within€the€rules.€€While€the€defendant€landlord€alleged€anÐ  l Ðaffirmative€act€by€an€employee€of€the€PHA,€the€court€did€not€deem€this€the€typeÐ ·   Ðof€"exceptional€circumstances"€wherein€estoppel€may€be€imposed€on€aÐ R¢  Ðgovernmental€agency.€€The€court€concluded€as€follows:Ð í=  ÐÓ€Óà8  àEstoppel€is€appropriate€against€government€agencies€only€when€theÐ ˆØ  Ðagency€induced€the€party€to€give€up€property€or€a€right€in€exchangeÐ šê  Ðfor€a€promise.€€Thus,€estoppel€is€appropriate€when€the€facts€clearlyÐ ¬ü Ðevidence€an€implied€contract,€òòGas-light€Co.€v.€Memphisóó,€93€Tenn.Ð ¾ Ð612,€30€S.W.€25€(1894);€€òòTrull€v.€City€of€Lobelvilleóó,€554€S.W.2dÐ Ð  Ð638€(Tenn.App.1976);€€òòBrown€v.€City€of€Manchesteróó,€722€S.W.2dÐ â2 Ð394,€397€(Tenn.App.1986),€or€when€the€government€induces€aÐ ôD Ðprivate€party€to€relinquish€a€cause€of€action,€òòState€ex€rel.€AmmonsÐ V Ðv.€City€of€Knoxvilleóó,€33€Tenn.App.€622,€232€S.W.2d€564€(1950).Ðh ü! ü! ÐÌòòÓ([ÓPriceóó,€844€S.W.2d€at€618.Ð <Œ ÐÓH¸ÓÓ€Ó€Ìà  àThe€Department's€action€in€this€case€does€not€amount€to€the€type€ofÐ ûK Ðinducement€that€gives€rise€to€estoppel.€€The€Department€told€Mr.€Thompson€howÐ –!æ  Ðto€comply€with€the€law€as€it€was€then€interpreted.€€It€did€not€affirmatively€induceÐ 1#" ÐMr.€Thompson€to€make€changes€to€his€property.€€Furthermore,€the€Department'sÐ Ì$ $ Ðaction€did€not€lead€to€an€implied€contract€between€Mr.€Thompson€nor€did€itÐ g&·!& Ðcause€Mr.€Thompson€to€relinquish€a€cause€of€action.€€Mr.€Thompson€still€has€theÐ (R#( Ðability€to€develop€his€land€by€complying€with€the€law€as€it€is€currentlyÐ )í$* Ðinterpreted.€€We€conclude€that€the€facts€in€this€case€do€not€present€theÐ 8+ˆ&, Ðexceptional€circumstances€required€to€invoke€equitable€estoppel€against€a€publicÐ Ó,#(. Ðagency.Ð n.¾)0 ÐÌÓ  ÓVI.Ð ¤1ô,4 ÐÓG¼ÓÌà  àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€We€find€that€the€division€ofÐ Ú4*08 Ðproperty€proposed€by€Mr.€Thompson€does€fall€within€the€statutory€definition€ofÐ u6Å1: Ðsubdivision€found€in€section€13„4„301(4)(B)€of€the€Tennessee€Code.€€As€aÐ 8`3< Ðsubdivision,€this€division€of€land€must€undergo€local€subdivision€review€by€theÐ «9û4> ÐMPC.€€Finally,€despite€the€fact€that€Mr.€Thompson€was€advised€pursuant€to€anÐ ° Ðearlier€interpretation€of€the€law,€we€do€not€find€that€the€application€to€Mr.Ð K› ÐThompson€of€this€statute,€as€newly€interpreted€by€the€informal€opinion€of€theÐ æ6 ÐMetro€Legal€Department,€in€any€way€violates€Mr.€Thompson's€constitutionalÐ  Ñ Ðrights.€€Furthermore,€we€do€not€find€that€the€doctrine€of€equitable€estoppel€canÐ  l Ðbe€invoked€to€bar€the€Department€from€applying€to€Mr.€Thompson€the€law€asÐ ·   Ðclarified€by€the€informal€opinion.€€Ð R¢  ÐÌÌÌÓ€Óà  àà ® à________________________________Ð ¾ Ðà  àà ® àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ Ð  ÐÌÌCONCUR:Ð V ÐÌÌ_________________________________Ð <Œ ÐWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ Nž ÐÌÌ_________________________________Ð „ Ô ÐPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ –!æ  ÐÌ