ÿWPCš& …# VUNa %¯ 0 (µw@Ý4 1 0l@ 0D¬ ð 0Jø 0TB B– 0^³ 0h 0ry 0|ë 0†g 0í 1u} U,ò 0d D3‚ 0@µU,õU>!U6_B)•DC¾ AMU*N xǘ”_ó€u—˜ v~¤vÓ" AOõ$ÆD% 0D & D/N& B}&˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ LMDNODPQERSDTÓ€`÷}± 3|x`((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô d2, 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'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New% Line 7 d11117Border 1dd€-2Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÔ€4ÔÔ€4ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€4XÔÌÌò òMay€22,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€4ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó ½Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔT.C.A.€ðð€13„7„105€provides,€in€pertinent€part,€as€follows:ÌÌà àà8 à(a)€The€county€legislative€body€may€from€time€to€timeÏamend€the€number,€shape,€boundary,€area€or€anyÏregulation€of€or€within€any€district€or€districts€orÏany€other€provision€of€any€zoning€ordinance;€but€anyÏsuch€amendment€shall€not€be€made€or€become€effectiveÏunless€the€same€be€first€submitted€for€approval,Ïdisapproval€or€suggestions€to€the€regional€planningÏcommission€of€the€region€in€which€the€territoryÏcovered€by€the€ordinance€is€located,€and,€if€suchÏregional€planning€commission€disapproves€within€thirtyÏ(30)€days€after€such€submission,€such€amendment€shallÏrequire€the€favorable€vote€of€a€majority€of€the€entireÏmembership€of€the€county€legislative€body.Ì ŠÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€other€individual€defendants€in€this€case,€Jimmy€S.€Doss›€and€MauriceÏW.€Hill,€are€reflected€on€the€rezoning€application€as€the€holders€of€an€optionÏto€purchase€the€subject€property.Ì ƒÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€application€also€sought€to€rezone€other€property€in€the€area€of€theÏPellissippi›€Parkway„Westland€Drive€interchange.€€Those€rezoning€requests€areÏnot€at€issue€on€this€appeal.Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔThe€MPC€is€the€regional€planning€commission€for€Knox€County.Ì kÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔT.C.A.Ô€0XÔ€ðð€Ô€0ôÔ13„7„204€provides€as€follows:ÌÌà àà8 àThe€zoning€ordinance,€including€the€maps,€may€fromÏtime€to€time€be€amended;€but€no€amendment€shall€becomeÏeffective€unless€it€is€first€submitted€to€and€approvedÏby€the€planning€commission€or,€if€disapproved,Ïreceives€the€favorable€vote€of€a€majority€of€theÏentire€membership€of€the€chief€legislative€body.Ì ŽÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€0ÔÔ€0ôÔò òòòMetropolitan€Government€of€Nashville€and€Davidson€County€v.ÏMitchell,€et€alóóó ó.,€an€unreported€opinion€of€the€Court€of€Appeals,€MiddleÏSection,€at€Nashville,€filed€August€30,€1974.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÓ&€..X„d&ÓÑ#€..Xd#ÑÔ€/ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ P ÑÔ€0ÔÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€• XXdìdÈ7ÑœÑ  ÑIN›€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌÓ  ÓÌÌWESTLAND€WEST€COMMUNITYà àà à€€)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9511„CH„00399ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€352;+'h|®i` Å `€€Lß›ASSOCIATION,€BRIAN€JOHNà àà à€€)€KNOX€COUNTYÏCHANCERY€COURTÌBAXTER,€GEORGE€HANNYE,€JAMES€à à€€)ÌJOSEPH€œNEUTENS›,€MARY€IRENEà à€€)ÌNEUTENS,€NED€RUSSELL,€AUGUST€à à€€)ÌDENNIG,à àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€HONORABLEÏSHARON€BELL,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€CHANCELLORÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)ÌKNOX€COUNTY,€COMMISSION€OF€KNOX€)ÌCOUNTY,€THOMAS€M.€SCHRIVER,€€€€€)ÌJIMMY€S.€DOSS,€MAURICE€W.€HILL,€)€REVERSEDÌà àà àà àà àà àà à€€)€COMPLAINT€DISMISSEDÌà àà àDefendants„Appellants.)€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌÓ` °X)0*ŠXÓCOURTNEY€N.€PEARRE€of€BAKER,€DONELSON,€BEARMAN€&€CALDWELL,ÏKnoxville,€for€Appellants€THOMAS€M.€SCHRIVER,€JIMMY€S.€DOSS,€andÏMAURICE€W.€HILLÌÌMICHAEL€W.€MOYERS,€Senior€Deputy€Law€œDirector€of€the›€KNOX€COUNTYÏLAW€DEPARTMENT,€Knoxville,€for€Appellants€KNOX€COUNTY€andÏCOMMISSION€OF€KNOX€COUNTYÌÌG.€W.€MORTON,€JR.,€of€MORTON€&€MORTON,€Knoxville,€for€AppelleesÌÓ ` °šXÓÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÓ  ÓòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NÌÌÌÓ  Óóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àSusano,€J.ÇÓÓà àà àThis€case€involves€the€rezoning€of€some€16.8€acres€ofÏproperty€located€in€the€northwest€quadrant€of€the€intersection€ofÏPellissippi€Parkway€and€Westland€Drive€in€Knox€County.€€TheÏCommission€of€Knox€County€(County€Commission),€the€legislativeÏbranch€of€the€government€of€Knox€County,€rezoned€the€subject€tractÏfrom€œAgricultural›€œ(A)›€œto›€œPlanned›€Commercial€œ(PC).›€€In€response€toÏa€complaint€filed€by€œa€neighborhood€association€and€residents›€ofÏsurrounding€neighborhoods,€the€œChancellor,›€following€a€non„juryÏhearing,€held€that€the€parties€who€sought€the€rezoning€had€failedÏto€comply€with€T.C.A.€ðð€13„7„105× ƒ6 ××  ×.€€œShe›€concluded€that€the€rezoningÏwas€ð ðvoid€and€of€no€effect.ðð€€Knox€County,€the€County€Commission,Ïand€the€parties€seeking€to€rezone€the€subject€œproperty,›€appeal,Ïcontending€that€the€Chancellor€erred,€as€a€matter€of€law,€inÏvoiding€the€County€Commissionððs€decision€to€rezone€the€property.€ÍThe€plaintiffs,€on€the€other€hand,€urge€us€to€sustain€theÏChancellorððs€action€on€the€T.C.A.€ðð€13„7„105€issue.€€In€theÏalternative,€they€argue€that€the€œaction€of€the€County›€CommissionÏœshould€be€nullified€because€that€body€was›€not€authorized€to€act,Ïas€it€admittedly€did,€ð ðby€a€single€vote€passage€of€a€resolutionÏrather€than€passage€on€two€votes€of€an€ordinance.ððÌÌÓ  ÓIÌÓ  ÓÌà àà àThe€relevant€facts€are€not€in€dispute.€€On€February€2,Ï1994,€the€appellant€Thomas€M.€Schriver× ƒ7 ××  ×€filed€a€rezoningÏapplication× ƒ8 ××  ×€with€the€Knoxville„Knox€County€Metropolitan€PlanningÏCommission€(MPC)× ƒ9 ××  ×€seeking€to€rezone€the€subject€tract€from€A€toÏœShopping›€Center€œ(SC).›€€On€March€10,€1994,€the€MPC€denied€theÏrequested€change€by€a€vote€of€8„0.€€On€April€11,€1994,€SchriverÏappealed€the€MPCððs€œdecision›€to€the€County€Commission.ÌÌà àà àThe€County€Commission€considered€Schriverððs€applicationÏat€a€hearing€on€May€23,€1994.€€At€that€hearing,€SchriverððsÏrepresentative€orally€asked€the€County€Commission€to€rezone€theÏproperty€to€œPC›€œrather›€than€œSC.›€€By€a€vote€of€12„7,€the€CountyÏCommission€rezoned€Schriverððs€property€from€A€to€PC.ÌÌà àà àThe€Chancellor€held€that€when€Schriver€changed€hisÏrequest€from€SC€to€PC,€he€was€required€to€resubmit€his€rezoningÏrequest€to€MPC,€citing€T.C.A.€ðð€13„7„105.€€In€so€holding,€theÏœChancellor›€observed:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àThis€Court€cannot€believe€that€the€only€testÏis€whether€the€MPC€recommendation€would€be€theÏsame,€but€believes€the€question€at€this€stageÏshould€also€be€whether€the€decision€of€theÏCounty€Commission€might€be€affected,€based€onÏdifferent€information€or€suggestions€affordedÏit.ÌÌà àà8 àSince€the€County€Commission€is€not€bound€byÏthe€findings€of€the€MPC,€the€Court€can€onlyÏsurmise€that€it€is€not€only€the€decision€ofÏthe€MPC,€but€also€the€rationale€of€the€MPC,Ïthat€is€important.ÌÌà àà8 àThe€rationale€of€the€MPC,€when€confronted€withÏan€application€for€Planned€Commercial€asÏapproved€œ[sic]€to›€Shopping€Center,€cannot€beÏpresumed€to€be€the€œsame.ÌÌÌÌWe€disagree€with€the€Chancellorððs€reasoning.›ÌÌÌÌÓÓ€à@ àIIÌÌà àà àOur€review€is€òòde€novoóó.€€Rule€13(d),€œT.R.A.P.›€€Since€theÏfacts€are€not€in€dispute,€we€are€presented€with€a€pure€question€ofÏlaw.€€Therefore,€the€record€œof€the€proceedings€below›€comes€to€usÏwithout€a€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòPresley€v.€Bennettóóó ó,€860ÏS.W.2d€857,€859„60€(Tenn.€1993);€ò òòòUnion€Carbide€Corporation€v.ÏœHuddleston›óóó ó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91€(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà àà àA€county€legislative€body€is€ð ðvested€with€broad€powersÏto€enact€and€to€amend€zoning€regulations€governing€the€use€ofÏland.ðð€€ò òòòœFallin›€v.€Knox€County€Board€of€Commissionersóóó ó,€656ÏS.W.2d€338,€342€(Tenn.€1983).€€A€zoning€decision€by€such€a€body€isÏvalid€œð ðððif›€any€possible€reason€can€be€conceived€to€justify€œit.ðððð›€ÏœòòIdóó.›€quoting€from€òòò òState€ex€rel.€œSCA›€Chemical€Waste€Services,ÏInc.€v.€œKonigsberg,€Tennessee›ó óóó,€636€S.W.2d€430,€437€(Tenn.Ï1982).€€However,€this€limited€scope€of€review€presupposes€that€theÏlegislative€body€has€acted€ð ðunder€its€delegated€police€powers.ðð€Ïòòò òœFallin›ó óóó,€656€S.W.2d€at€342.€€òòSee€also€ò òœMcCallen›€v.€City€ofÍMemphisó óóó,€786€S.W.2d€633€(Tenn.€1990)€differentiating€betweenÏð ðsubstantive€as€opposed€to€procedural€issues.ðð€€òòIdóó.€at€640.ÌÌà àà àThe€issue€in€this€case€is€not€whether€ð ðany€possibleÏreason€can€be€conceived€to€justifyðð€the€rezoning€in€this€case,Ïòòò òœFallin›ó óóó€at€342;€but€rather€whether€the€rezoning€application€wasÏœpursued›€in€compliance€with€T.C.A.€ðð€13„7„105.€€That€statuteÏrequires€that€before€any€amendment€to€a€zoning€ordinance€is€ð ðmadeÏor€œbecome[s›]€effective,ðð€it€must€œð ðfirst›€œ[be]€submitted›€forÏapproval,€disapproval€or€suggestions€to€the€regional€planningÏcommission,ðð„„in€this€case,€the€MPC.€€This€requirement€has€beenÏheld€by€us€to€be€mandatory.€€ò òòòState€ex€rel.€Browning„FerrisÏIndustries€of€Tennessee,€Inc.€v.€Board€of€Commissioners€ofÏKnox€Countyóóó ó,€806€S.W.2d€181,€188€(Tenn.€œApp›.€1990).€€The€SupremeÏCourt€has€reached€the€same€conclusion€with€respect€to€a€statuteÏwith€similar€language€and€identical€import.€€ò òòòœHoldredge›€v.€CityÏof€Clevelandóóó ó,€402€S.W.2d€709,€712„13€(Tenn.€1966).ÌÌà àà àIn€the€instant€case,€Schriver€first€submitted€hisÏrezoning€request€to€the€MPC€as€required€by€T.C.A.€œðð›€13„7„105;Ïhowever,€at€the€time€the€application€was€filed€with€that€body€andÏat€the€time€it€was€considered€by€MPC,€the€requested€rezoning€wasÍto€SC.€€œBy€the€time€the€matter›€œreached›€the€County€Commission,€theÏrequest€œhad€been›€changed€to€seek€a€rezoning€to€another€commercialÏzone,€i.e.,€PC.€€The€question€then€is€squarely€presented:€did€theÏchange€œfrom€SC€to€PC€require›€that€the€application€be€resubmittedÏto€the€MPC€before€County€Commission€could€act€upon€it?€€Both€sidesÏfind€the€answer€to€that€question€in€the€case€of€ò òòòWilgus€v.€CityÏof€œMurfreesboro›óóó ó,€532€S.W.2d€50€(Tenn.€App.€1975)€(œDrowota›,€J.)€ÏIt€is€to€that€case€that€we€now€turn€for€guidance.ÌÌà àà àInòòò ò€Wilgusóóó ó,€the€Middle€Section€of€this€court€construed€aÏstatute€(now€codified€at€T.C.A.€ðð€13„7„204× ƒ: ××  ×)€similar€to€T.C.A.€ððÏ13„7„105.€€The€regional€planning€commission€in€that€caseÏrecommended€a€zoning€change€to€permit€a€shopping€center.€€TheÏœMurfreesboro›€City€Council€approved€the€change€but€modified€it€toÏrequire€that€a€portion€of€the€property€be€removed€from€theÏdescription€of€the€rezoned€tract.€€The€property€owner€had€agreedÍto€plant€trees€in€the€removed€ð ðbuffer€zoneðð€to€shield€adjacentÏresidential€property€from€the€shopping€center.ÌÌà àà àThe€court€in€ò òòòWilgusóóó ó€held€that€the€change€undertaken€byÏthe€City€Council€did€not€require€that€the€rezoning€application€beÏresubmitted,€despite€the€language€of€T.C.A.€ðð€13„7„204€providingÏthat€ð ðòònoóó€amendment€shall€become€effective€unless€it€is€firstÏsubmitted€to€and€approved€by€the€planning€commission€or,€ifÏdisapproved,€receives€the€favorable€vote€of€a€majority€of€theÏentire€membership€of€the€chief€legislative€body.ðð€€(EmphasisÏadded).€€In€addressing€the€type€of€zoning€applications€that€had€toÏbe€resubmitted,€the€court€in€ò òòòWilgusóóó ó€opined€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àIf€a€proposed€zoning€ordinance€is€amended€soÏsubstantially€that€a€new€proposal€is,€inÏeffect,€created€we€think€it€clear€that€.€.€.Ïthe€state€statute€.€.€.€œrequire[s›]€it€to€beÏsubmitted€to€the€planning€commission€for€itsÏconsideration€before€the€municipal€legislativeÏbody€may€finally€act€upon€it.€€To€holdÏotherwise€would€defeat€the€clear€intent€of€theÏstatutory€requirement€that€the€legislativeÏbody€have€available,€before€it€acts,€theÏrecommendations€of€the€commission.€.€.€.ÌÌà àà8 àThe€purpose€of€requiring€submission€to€theÏplanning€commission€is€to€give€the€legislativeÏbody€the€advantage€of€the€commissionððsÏexpertise€on€land€use€planning€with€respect€toÏthe€proposal€that€it€must€either€adopt€orÏreject.€€A€revision€in€a€proposed€zoningÍordinance€that€would€not,€under€òòò òMitchell× ƒ; ××  ×ó óóó,Ïcreate€a€new€bill€mandating€passage€for€theÏrequisite€number€of€days€under€an€applicableÏcharter€or€statute,€might€nevertheless€be€soÏimportant€as€to€require€resubmission€of€theÏproposal€to€the€commission.€€The€test€isÏwhether€the€revision€is€so€substantial€as€toÏcreate€a€strong€probability€that€theÏcommissionððs€recommendation€would€have€beenÏaffected€by€the€œrevision.€€If€the€change€isÏboth€inconsequential€and€produces€noÏdetrimental€effects€to€those€who€would€opposeÏit,€then€the€revised€proposal€is€not€requiredÏto€be€resubmitted.ÌÌà àà8 àThe€lawmaking€powers€of€the€municipality€beingÏvested€in€its€governing€body,€there€is€noÏrequirement€that€it€abide€by€the€commissionððsÏsuggestions.€€It€is€required,€however,€that€itÏhave€before€it€those€suggestions€when€it€acts.ÌÌÌÌò òòòWilgusóóó ó,€532€S.W.2d€at€53„54.Ì›ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àIt€is€true€that€the€rezoning€approved€by€the€CountyÏCommission€œwas›€different€from€that€presented€to€MPC.€€For€example,ÏPlanned€Commercial€œpermits›€extensive€commercial€services€and€lightÏdistribution€centers;€the€Shopping€Center€zone€œis›€limited€toÏretail€uses.€€The€latter€zone€œlimits›€the€height€of€buildings€toÏthree€stories;€under€Planned€Commercial,€they€œmay›€exceed€four€orÍmore€stories.€€However,€it€is€clear€that€òòbothóó€zones€œare›€commercialÏin€nature.€€About€this,€there€can€be€no€doubt.ÌÌà àà àWhen€Schriver€asked€that€his€property€be€rezoned€toÏShopping€Center,€the€staff€of€the€MPC€recommended€that€the€requestÏbe€denied.€€Significantly,€it€did€so€in€a€way€that€clearlyÏreflected€its€opinion€that€òòany€commercial€zoneóó,€be€it€ShoppingÏCenter,€Planned€Commercial,€or€some€other€commercial€zone,€wasÏcontrary€to€the€general€zoning€plan€that€had€earlier€been€adoptedÏby€the€County€Commission€for€the€area€in€which€the€subjectÏproperty€œwas›€œlocated.€€This€can€be€gleaned€from€the€report€of€theÏMPC€staff€to€the€MPC€regarding€Schriverððs€application:›ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àThis€property€is€within€the€study€areaÏexamined€as€part€of€the€Pellissippi€ParkwayÏExtension€Corridor€Study€(9/88).€€This€study,Ïwhich€amended€the€Southwest€Knox€County€SectorÏPlanòò,óó€proposed€that€low€density€residential€(1Ïto€5€du/ac€[dwelling€units€per€acre])€beÏdeveloped€around€the€PellissippiÏParkway/Westland€Dr.€œinterchange.›€.€œ.ÌÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌà àà8 àShopping›€Center€zoning€is€proposed€for€TractÏ1.€€The€study€stipulated€that€commercial€usesÏat€Westland€Dr.€should€only€be€considered€asÏpart€of€the€provision€of€the€PR€œ[PlannedÏResidential]€zone›€which€permits€one€acre€ofÏcommercial€development€for€every€100€units€ofÍresidential€use.€€Such€commercial€use€shouldÏalso€be€integrated€in€the€overall€plan€for€theÏresidential€development€and€must€be€approvedÏas€part€of€a€development€plan.€€A€shoppingÏcenter€developed€on€Tract€1€as€proposed€by€theÏdeveloper€could€generate€œas€many›€as€8,967Ïtrips€per€day.€€Added€to€the€1,669€trips€whichÏcould€be€generated€from€medium€densityÏdevelopment€on€Tract€2,€and€over€1,300€tripsÏfrom€a€related€rezoning€(3„L„94„œRZ›),€œthis›Ïcommercial€traffic€would€further€burden€theÏtraffic€system€near€the€œinterchange.ÌÌà àà8 àSTAFF€RECOMMENDATION:€DENY.€€The›€requests€forÏShopping€Center€and€Planned€Residential€zoningÏat€1€to€10€units€per€acre€are€clearlyÏcontradictory€to€the€adopted€Sector€Plan.€€TheÏplan€œproposes›€PR€at€5€units€per€acre€andÏprohibits€commercial€development€except€asÏapproved€under€a€PR€development€plan.ÌÌÌÌÓÓBased€on€the€staffððs€òòbroadóó€determination€that€òòanyóó€commercial€zoneÏwould€be€contrary€to€the€Southwest€Knox€County€Sector€Plan,€theÏMPC€voted€to€disapprove€Schriverððs€commercial€rezoning€request.€ÏThe€motion€adopted€by€that€body€was€ð ðto€approve€the€staffÏœrecommendation,ðð„„€the€one€that€had€said€any€commercial€zone€wasÏobjectionable.̛̜à àà àWhile›€the€zone€approved€by€the€County€Commission€wasÏdifferent€from€œthat€addressed›€by€the€œMPC,›€the€rationale€of€thatÏbody„„that€a€commercial€zone€violated€the€Southwest€Knox€CountyÏSector€œPlan„„applies›€with€equal€force€to€the€request€acted€upon€byÍthe€County€Commission.€€In€effect,€the€request€ultimatelyÏœaddressed›€by€the€County€Commission€was€œanswered›€by€œMPCððs›€broadÏœresponse›€œto›€the€earlier€request.€€That€response€can€be€paraphrasedÏas€follows:€€ððWe€will€not€approve€a€commercial€zone€in€œthe€area€ofÏthe›€Pellissippi€Parkway„„Westland€Drive€œinterchange€because€such€aÏzone€is€contrary€to€the€Southwest€Knox€County€Sector€Plan.ðð›€Ïòòò òWilgusó óóó€teaches€that€only€those€revisions€that€are€ð ðso€substantialÏas€to€create€a€strong€probability€that€the€[regional€planning]Ïcommissionððs€recommendation€would€have€been€affected€by€theÏrevision,ðð€must€be€resubmitted.€€Here,€it€is€clear,€beyond€anyÏdoubt,€that€œupon€resubmission€the›€MPC€œwould›€have€œresponded›€œexactlyÏas€it€did€on€the€SC€request.›€€Nothing€œhad›€changed.€€A€commercialÏzone€œin€the€area€continued€to€be€contrary›€to€the€Southwest€KnoxÏCounty€Sector€Plan.€€It€can€be€argued,€as€the€appellees€do,€thatÏthe€PC€zone€is€even€more€commercial,€and€hence€more€objectionableÏas€far€as€the€Sector€Plan€is€concerned.€€There€œwas›€no€reason€to€goÏback€to€the€MPC.€€The€change€œwas›€not€so€substantial,€òòas€thatÏconcept€is€defined€in€ò òœWilgus›ó óóó,€as€to€expect€that€the€MPCððsÏrecommendation€would€be€affected€by€œit.ÌÌà àà àIt€is€true€that€òòò òWilgusó óóó€discusses€whether€resubmissionÏis€necessary€if€the€change€made€by€the€legislative€body€is€bothÍð ðinconsequentialðð€and€without€a€ð ðdetrimental€effect[]€to€those€whoÏwould€oppose€it.ðð€€It€is€also€true€that€the€change€here€isÏarguably€consequential€and€more€onerous€to€the€surroundingÏresidential€neighborhoods;€but€the€reason€the€court€in€òòò òWilgusó óóóÏemphasized€the€ð ðinconsequentialðð€nature€of€the€rezoning€wasÏbecause€the€change€in€that€case€was€clearly€insignificant.€€ò òòòWilgusóóó óÏdoes€not€stand€for€the€converse€of€its€ð ðinconsequentialððÏpronouncement.€€It€cannot€be€interpreted€to€mean€that€everyÏsignificant€change€must€be€resubmitted€to€the€regional€planningÏcommission.€€The€more€important€aspect€of€òòò òWilgusó óóó€is€the€ð ðtestðð€asÏstated€by€the€court„„is€there€ð ða€strong€probability€that€theÏ[regional€planning]€commissionððs€recommendation€would€have€beenÏaffected€by€the€revision.ðð€€The€answer€in€this€case€is€clearlyÏð ðno.ðð€€MPC€would€have€opposed€PC€for€the€same€reason€it€opposedÏSC„„such€a€zone€was€contrary€to€the€Southwest€Knox€County€SectorÏPlan.€€Resubmission€would€have€been€a€waste€of€time€and€effort.€ÏThe€law€does€not€require€an€individual€to€pursue€a€futile€act.€Ïò òòòRichardson€v.€Tennessee€Board€of€Dentistryóóó ó,€913€S.W.2d€446,Ï456€(Tenn.€1995);€ò òòòSpellmeyer€v.€Tennessee€Farmers€Mut.€Ins.ÏCo.óóó ó,€879€S.W.2d€843,€848€(Tenn.€App.€1993).€€The€holding€inÏò òòòWilgusóóó ó€recognizes€this€concept.›ÌÌà àà àIt€is€clear€from€the€transcript€of€the€County€CommissionÏmeeting€that€the€commissioners€clearly€understood€two€things:Ïfirst,€that€the€MPC€was€œopposed›€to€a€commercial€zone€in€theÏœPellissippi›€Parkway„„Westland€Drive€interchange€area;€and€second,Ïthat€the€rationale€for€this€opposition€was€the€fact€that€òòanyóó€suchÏzone€was€violative€of€the€Southwest€Knox€County€Sector€Plan.€€ThisÏœunderstanding,€particularly€with€respect€to€the€latter€matter,›€isÏshown€by€the€comments€of€Commissioner€Frank€œLeuthold›:ÌÌÓÓà àà8 àThank€you,€Mr.€Chairman.€€What€we€have€here€isÏa€motion€to€be€in€violation€of€our€SectorÏPlan.€€I€donððt€think€we€should€be€makingÏmotions€in€violation€of€sector€plans.€€AtÏbest,€if€you€think€that€sector€plan€is€out€ofÏdate,€it€ought€to€be€sent€back€and€have€publicÏhearings€as€you€do€in€any€amendment€to€aÏsector€plan.€€Thatððs€not€being€recommended.€ÏSo€what€we€have€is€a€motion€that€is€a€directÏviolation€of€a€sector€plan€that€essentiallyÏsays€the€plans€donððt€mean€anything.€€œÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*̛̜à àà8 àSo›€Planned€Commercial€allows€any€type€ofÏcommercial.€€Itððs€not€limited€to€office.€ÏAnything€thatððs€œlabelled›€commercial€can€go€inÏœthere.ÌÌà@ à*€€€€*€€€€*ÌÌà àà8 àAnd,›€Iððm€not€very€pleased€with€the€motion€andÏthe€intent€to€what€I€think€may€happen€here.€ÏSo€I€would€ask€œto€[sic]›€fellow€commissionersÏthat€they€vote€against€this€request€and€keepÍfaith€with€the€sector€plan€and€the€people€thatÏhelped€develop€it€and€live€in€this€area.ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àà àThere€was€no€reason€for€this€matter€to€be€resubmitted€toÏMPC.€That€body€had€already€spoken,€œwithout›€œequivocation,›€on€theÏsubject€of€commercial€zoning€in€the€area€under€consideration.€€œTheÏCounty€Commission€had€before€it€the€MPCððs€ð ðsuggestions,ðð€ò òòòWilgusóóó ó,Ï532€S.W.2d€at€54,€and€ð ðthe€advantage€of€the€commissionððs€expertiseÏon€land€use€planning€with€respect€to€the€propos[ed]ðð€rezoning.€ÏòòIdóó.€at€53.€€We›€find€and€hold€that€the€Chancellor€erred,€as€aÏmatter€of€law,€in€determining€that€this€matter€had€to€beÏresubmitted€to€MPC.ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àà àIn€the€alternative,€the€appellees€argue€that€the€actionÏof€the€County€Commission€should€be€invalidated€because€that€bodyÏfailed€to€pass€the€amendment€to€the€zoning€ordinance€on€twoÏseparate€readings.€€Assuming,€without€deciding,€that€the€appelleesÏare€correct,€the€point€is€now€moot.€€On€April€4,€1996,€GovernorÏDon€œSundquist›€signed€into€law€Chapter€715€of€the€Public€Acts€ofÏ1996,€which€provides€as€follows:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà8 àSECTION€1.€€Tennessee€Code€Annotated,€SectionÏ13„7„105,€is€amended€by€adding€the€followingÏas€a€new,€appropriately€designated€subsection:ÌÌà8 àà8 àà à(€)€Notwithstanding€the€provisions€ofÏthis€part€or€any€other€law€to€the€contrary,Ïany€county€having€a€charter€form€ofÏgovernment,€adopted€pursuant€to€Title€5,ÏChapter€1,€Part€2,€may€amend€its€zoningÏordinance€by€means€of€a€resolution;€andòò€allÏzoning€amendments€passed€by€resolution€priorÏto€July€1,€1995,€shall€be€deemed€to€be€validÏand€shall€not€be€attacked€on€the€grounds€thatÏthe€amendments€were€accomplished€by€means€ofÏresolution€rather€than€by€ordinance.ÌóóÌà8 àà8 àSECTION€2.€€This€act€shall€take€effect€uponÏbecoming€a€law,€the€public€welfare€requiringÏit.ÌÌÌÌÓÓ(Emphasis€added).€€This€act€applies€to€Knox€County€since€it€has€aÏcharter€form€of€government.ÌÌà àà àFor€the€foregoing€reasons,€the€judgment€of€the€trialÏcourt€is€reversed€and€the€complaint€is€dismissed.€€Costs€on€appealÏare€assessed€to€the€appellees.€€This€case€is€remanded€pursuant€toÏapplicable€law.ÌÌÓÓœà à›à àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌ___________________________ÌDon€T.€McMurray,€J.Ì