ÿWPC¨ …# VUDa %¥ 0(« 0”Ó4g { Š w@’ 0DÒ 0J 0T` 0^´ 0h 0rz 0|ì 0†h 0î 1u~ 0dó B)WDC€ AMÃU*è: B"v~?vÓ½ D3 0@à AOÆR 0D D/\ B‹˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ8§ÖhZŠ,Century-WP RegularX($¡¡(D(2´¤$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÓ  Óà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÍD0"3|x klAemnoEpqDrDsÓ€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ÞÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÔ€$ÔÔ€$ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€$XÔÌÌò òMay€16,€1997ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€$ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'hStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  h HD: Geneva ÒÒ  h HD: Geneva Ò&&&&'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÝ  Ý›Ò  ÒÒ ° ÒÒ  ÒÒ X ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑœÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌ______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌVOWELL€VENTURES,à àà àà àà àWeakley€Chancery€No.€12325€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9604„CH„00090Ìà àPlaintiff,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHon.€William€B.€Acree,€JudgeÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àÌ̜ـ€ÙßR€#%"A1-j|IûZ` Å `€€@ÿRß›CITY€OF€MARTIN,ÌÌà àDefendant.ÌÌH.€MAX€SPEIGHT,€Martin,€Attorney€for€Plaintiff.ÌÌMARK€G.€GALLIEN,€Martin,€Attorney€for€Defendant.ÌÌò òòòAFFIRMED€ó óóóÌÌOpinion€filed:Ì______________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ó óà@ àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àÌÓÓÔ€Ôà àVowell€Ventures,€a€partnership€(hereafter€ð ðVowellðð€or€ð ðMorrisÏVowellðð)€filed€suit€in€the€Chancery€Court€of€Weakley€County€against€theÏCity€of€Martin€(ð ðCityðð)€by€a€pleading€which€was€appropriately€treated€byÏthe€trial€court€as€a€Petition€for€a€Writ€of€Certiorari,€seeking€an€order€fromÏthat€court€directing€City€to€issue€Vowell€a€building€permit€to€erect€anÏoffice€building€on€a€parcel€of€land€owned€by€Vowell.€€City€had€previouslyÍdenied€the€permit€for€the€reason€that€the€proposed€building€was€to€beÏconstructed€over€an€existing€sanitary€sewer€line€and€a€storm€drain.€ÏVowell€presents€one€issue€for€this€court€to€consider€on€appealð"ðwhetherÏthe€trial€court€erred€in€denying€its€application€for€a€building€permit.€€ForÏthe€reasons€hereinafter€stated,€we€œaffirm›€the€trial€œcourt.€€We€also›€holdÏthat€this€appeal€is€frivolous.Ìà àThe€basic€factsð"ðin€essence€virtually€all€the€factsð"ðare€not€inÏdispute.€€Inasmuch€as€the€parties€were€unable€to€file€an€agreed€statementÏof€the€evidence,€the€chancellor€prepared€and€filed€one€on€behalf€of€theÏcourt.€€Ìà àMorris€Vowell€and€others€acquired€title€to€the€property€in€questionÏby€warranty€deed€in€1983.€€The€property,€a€rectangular€vacant€lot,€frontsÏon€U.S.€45€in€the€city.€€The€frontage,€the€width€of€the€property,€is€94€feet.€ÏThe€property€extends€back€east€from€the€highway€slightly€over€250€feet€inÏlength.€€Vowell€proposed€to€construct€a€40'€X€80'€shell€for€an€officeÏbuilding,€rectangular€in€shape,€to€be€set€back€50€feet€from€the€east€marginÏof€highway€45.€€The€minimum€set€back€requirement€in€this€area€is€25€feet.€€Ìà àWhile€the€warranty€deed€from€Vowellððs€grantor€to€Vowell€makes€noÏmention€of€any€underground€utility€easement€running€through€the€property,Ïit€is€uncontradicted€that€two€separate€underground€utility€linesð"ðone€aÏsanitary€sewer€line€and€the€other€a€storm€sewer€lineð"ðrun€in€a€generalÍnorth„south€direction€through€the€property€and€based€upon€the€plannedÏlocation€of€the€building€would€pass€directly€underneath€portions€of€theÏproposed€structure.€€For€the€benefit€of€the€readers€of€this€opinion€we€haveÏattached€a€copy€of€a€plat,€filed€as€exhibit€4€at€trial€below,€which€showsÏall€the€pertinent€physical€facts€relative€to€this€controversy.Ìà àVowellððs€application€for€a€building€permit€was€denied€by€Billy€Stout,ÏCityððs€Chief€Building€Inspector,€on€the€ground€that€City€had€Ñ7€XXdðXXdð7ÑrecentlyÏadopted€a€policy€of€denying€building€permits€when€the€building€would€beÏlocated€directly€over€underground€utility€lines.€€Stout€testified€that€thisÏpolicy€was€enacted€to€avoid€unnecessary€repair€costs€to€City€for€damageÏto€private€buildings€which€could€be€caused€by€a€failure€of€one€of€the€sewerÏlines.€€After€Vowell€was€unable€to€obtain€a€hearing€by€Cityððs€governingÏboard,€this€petition€for€certiorari€was€filed.€€Ìà àAt€the€hearing€below,€the€only€witness€to€testify€for€plaintiff€wasÏMorris€Vowell,€one€of€the€partners.€€He€testified€that€there€were€noÏrecorded€easements€or€grants€for€either€of€the€underground€sewer€lines€onÏhis€property.€€This€is€not€contested.€€He€also€testified€that€as€we€haveÏalready€noted,€there€was€no€reference€to€either€sewer€line€in€the€deed€toÏVowell.€€This€is€also€not€contested.€€He€further€testified€that€City€hadÏpermitted€others€to€construct€buildings€over€underground€sewer€lines.€€Ìà àCity€did€provide€Vowell€a€compromise€plan€that€would€placeÏVowellððs€proposed€building€an€additional€seventeen€feet€back€from€theÏhighway€right„of„way,€which€would€clear€Vowellððs€structure€from€lyingÏabove€the€underground€lines.€€Vowell€rejected€the€offer,€stating€that€suchÏa€relocation€of€the€building€would€make€the€site€ð ðunattractiveðð€for€aÏfuture€sale.€€Vowell€conceded€that€Cityððs€compromise€plan€would€allowÏhim€to€still€pave€and/or€otherwise€make€use€of€the€property€over€the€linesÏand€that€he€had€a€deep€lot€with€ð ðplenty€of€room€to€build€on.ðð€Ìà àOn€cross€examination€Vowell€readily€admitted€that€potentialÏproblems€exist€in€placing€a€building€over€a€sewer€line€or€a€storm€drain€andÏthat€the€likelihood€of€problems€increases€if€a€building€is€placed€over€bothÏa€sewer€line€and€a€storm€drain.€€He€described€potential€problems€to€includeÏa€line€collapse,€a€line€becoming€stopped€up,€and€a€line€generally€needingÏrepairs€or€replacement.€€He€stated€that€structural€damage€to€a€buildingÏcould€occur€if€a€sewer€line€under€it€should€collapse.€€He€further€testifiedÏthat€a€portion€of€a€building€over€an€underground€sewer€line€would€have€toÏbe€removed€if€the€line€under€it€needed€repairs€or€replacement.€€As€aÏlicensed€contractor,€he€voiced€the€opinion€that€if€a€person€had€a€choice€itÏwould€be€better€not€to€build€over€a€utility€line.€€€He€further€stated€that€heÏhad€no€knowledge€of€the€condition€or€age€of€the€utility€lines€crossing€thisÍproperty€over€which€he€desired€to€construct€his€new€building.Ìà àThe€first€of€two€witnesses€to€testify€for€City€was€James€Crocker,ÏCity€Engineer.€€He€stated€that€he€made€the€determination€not€to€allowÏbuilding€permits€to€be€issued€over€existing€sewer€and€storm€drainageÏlines,€although€he€admitted€that€there€was€no€City€ordinance€in€placeÏspecifically€prohibiting€the€issuing€of€permits€under€such€conditions.€ÏCrocker,€a€licensed€civil€engineer,€testified€as€to€the€extensive€repairsÏthat€had€to€be€made€in€five€instancesÔ€Ô€by€City€to€sewer€lines€which€hadÏbuildings€and€other€improvements€constructed€over€them,€as€well€as€theÏextensive€costs€in€some€instances€that€had€to€be€borne€by€City€due€toÏrepairs€that€had€to€be€made€to€these€buildings€and€improvements€becauseÏof€their€location€over€or€in€proximity€to€these€underground€sewer€lines.€ÏHe€further€testified€that€he€had€served€as€public€works€director€for€CityÏsince€1990€and€to€his€knowledge€no€permits€had€been€issued€since€thatÏtime€by€City€to€build€over€any€underground€utility€lines.€€Ìà àThe€second€and€last€witness€to€testify€for€City€was€Billy€Stout,€aÏcertified€building€inspector€who€had€served€in€that€capacity€since€1993.€ÏHe€testified€that€while€he€knew€of€no€City€code€that€specificallyÏprohibited€the€construction€of€buildings€or€improvements€over€sewer€orÏstorm€drain€lines,€he€denied€the€permit€in€this€case€as€it€was€the€practiceÍat€that€time€for€the€City€Public€Works€Department€not€to€issue€a€permitÏunder€these€conditions,€primarily€to€avoid€unnecessary€repair€costs€dueÏdamage€to€private€buildings€that€could€be€caused€by€a€sewer€line€failure.€€Ìà àHe€further€testified€that€while€there€was€no€specific€provision€inÏthe€Standard€Building€Code€(1982€edition)€that€had€been€adopted€and€wasÏin€effect€in€City€at€that€time€that€would€specifically€prevent€theÏplacement€of€€buildings€over€storm€sewer€lines,€he€was€of€the€opinion€thatÏhe€was€empowered€to€do€so€pursuant€to€ðþÿð€103.5€thereof,€which€reads€asÏfollows:ÌÓÓÌà8 àò ò103.5„„REQUIREMENTS€NOT€COVERED€BY€CODEó óÌà8 àà àAny€requirement€necessary€for€the€strength€or€stabilityÏof€an€existing€or€proposed€building€or€structure,€or€for€theÏsafety€or€health€of€the€occupants€thereof,€not€specificallyÏcovered€by€this€code,€shall€be€determined€by€the€BuildingÏOfficial.ÌÌÌÓÓà àOn€appeal€our€scope€of€review€in€reviewing€a€trial€courtððs€decisionÏpertaining€to€administrative€or€legislative€action€by€a€local€governingÏbody€is€to€ascertain€whether€the€trial€court€and€the€governmental€entity€inÏthe€first€instance,€acted€illegally,€arbitrarily€or€capriciously.€€Neither€theÏtrial€court€nor€this€court€is€to€substitute€their€judgment€for€that€of€aÏlocal€governmental€body.€€òòMcCallen€v.€City€of€Memphisóó,€786€S.W.2d€633,Í641€(Tenn.€1990).Ìà àIn€our€opinion€not€only€did€City€fail€to€act€in€an€arbitrary,€illegal€orÏcapricious€manner,€but€to€the€contrary€it€acted€not€only€for€the€bestÏinterest€of€the€Cityððs€welfare,€but€for€the€best€interest€of€the€welfare€ofÏVowell€as€well.€€In€our€opinion€the€testimony€of€Morris€Vowell€standingÏalone€would€be€sufficient€to€justify€the€action€of€the€trial€court.€€While€itÏwould€appear€from€some€portions€of€Vowellððs€testimony€that€he€wasÏseeking€to€claim€an€estoppel€against€City,€estoppel€was€not€pled€in€hisÏcomplaint.€€Furthermore,€as€a€general€rule€estoppel€would€not€lie€against€aÏgovernmental€agency.€€òòElizabethton€Housing€and€Development€Agency,€Inc.ÏV.€Priceóó,€844€S.W.2d€614,€618€(Tenn.€App.€1992).€€€€Ìà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€In€addition,Ïthis€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€when€the€principles€governing€theÏdetermination€of€a€frivolous€appeal€are€applied,€this€is€a€frivolous€appeal,Ïpursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðþÿð€27„1„122.€€Upon€remand€the€trial€court€is€directed€toÏhold€a€hearing€to€ascertain€the€amount€of€reimbursement€to€City€forÏattorney€fees€and€other€legal€costs€pursuant€to€T.C.A.€ðþÿð€27„1„122.€€CostsÏin€this€cause€on€appeal€are€taxed€to€Vowell,€for€which€execution€may€issueÏif€necessary.€€ÌÔ€ÔÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àTOMLIN,€Sr.€J.ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCRAWFORD,€P.€J.€W.S.à àà à(CONCURS)ÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àLILLARD,€J.à àà àà à(CONCURS)Ì