WPC@ Gj9'Qe1ւսZҊy  }A\HnH-]`Ye|iF=iR"Ҁ\ {Y jt:/6;W&^{-geBd+~eFzOؔۺc.`^64ca%V.9V7%a.Yy!b Ձ.]_k9u86(ZC }3jBs_G~pM9kbzPo-4$]CC[qݕ-t&gVxNU1p 4B02'V]c(YU~HqBL# i;PX|DMݡ {Dbɯ V|5w7g 4"v mt!ffXbudl~`0Jw k>x7}`|@MPb#\ %% ^ + 07 U"N w 4 z%  q  m f Q 0 DN[ 0U] 0E 0 0\ 0 0 0 04 0 0| 0A 0 0 0r !i"# 0%% 0(t )f+-b0 01 01 0)2 02 03 0i4 05 05 0U6 06 07 1U 8U>^8t8 1u; 72;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; 0 ;;;; B<< 0< D3c= D-= 0K== AS>a> 0'? 0D? A@\\ib01s01\clerk1nas,,,,0p1 (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularIN1:i+00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U  C.K. COA P.J.MangrumPeyton JerereweighGov'tFallinComm'rsHemontolorSanifillComm'nPapachristouSeligmanBelknapMillburnGovtreplot t]heByramRatledgeBlountReinauerParamusRobey A.dMcQuillanVoelckersGuelli i]tClaycomincreas[ingremain[edClaycombTraughber FiteYokleyBlackmonOverstreetReddochLaffertyBurson DevsFednStegalli]mmediatelyp]latLenziColbergShoneyHedgepathCommrMcLeskyLoudon NuttInt'lMcCullochLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0  *+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   *&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &    R$      4    _DespitethefactthattherecordoftheJuly24,2001hearing,suchasitis,makesnoreferencetoany   conditionstotheplanning_commissions_Ԁapprovalofthepreliminaryplatfortheentiresubdivision,theplanning t commissionandthedeveloperapparentlydiscussedincludinga15footconservation/buffereasementonPhasesTwo 8 andThree.Therewasalsosomediscussionregardingincreasingthesizeofanumberoflotsinthesubdivision. R$      1    _WewillrefertoB&BEnterprisesandHalBonecollectivelyas B&B_Enterprises._ R$      2    _PhaseTwocontained37lots. R$      3    _PhaseThreecontained32lots.  R$      5    _Onepropertyownerobserved:  8  8`   Rightnow,ofcourse,youknowwhatmycommunitylookslike,nicebrickhouses, 8 biglots,trees,everything.Now_youre_Ԁgoingtobegoingwith1,200squarefoot L houses,vinylsiding,possiblygraveldrives.*// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #    R$      6    _OnFebruary27,2002,thedayfollowingthehearing,theMayorofLebanonandanothermemberofthe  planningcommissionpreparedaselfserving memorandumforinclusioninthecommissionsfileexplainingtheirvotes t fordenyingfinalapprovalofPhasesTwoandThree.Theystated(1)thatthe conservationeasement/bufferaspresented 8 wasnotfactualand(2)thatnoofferwasmade toreconfigurelotscontiguoustoPonderosaTrailformorecompatible L sizing.  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h  j R$      7    _See,e.g.,Hedgepathv.Norton,839S.W.2d416,417(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Stateexrel.BrowningFerris  v.BoardofCommrsofKnoxCounty,806S.W.2d181,186(Tenn.Ct.App.1990);Foleyv.Hamilton,603S.W.2d151, t 153(Tenn.Ct.App.1980);seealsoOLearyv.Hall,No.03A019507CH00235,1996WL84852,at*12(Tenn.Ct. 8 App.Feb.27,1996)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled); \ R$      8    _PerhapsthecommissionassumedthatitwasnotrequiredtofiletranscriptsofitsconsiderationoftheChaparral  subdivisionbecauseitfiledtheaudiorecordingsoftheseproceedings.Thisassumptionismistakenfortworeasons. t First,wehavealreadypointedoutthataudiorecordingscannotbesubstitutedforthestatutorilyrequiredtranscripts. 8 Second,largeportionsofthesetranscriptsareunintelligible.  R$      10    _Therecord,suchasitis,makesclearthatcommunityoppositionwasthesolebasisfortheplanning  commissionsdecisiontodeclinetoapprovePhasesTwoandThree.However,communityoppositiondoesnotprovide t anappropriatebasisforwithholdingapprovalofaproposeddevelopmentthatmeetsallapplicablerequirements.Inthis 8 case,theplanningcommissionsstaffinformedthecommissionthatPhasesTwoandThreemetallapplicablesubdivision L requirementsandwereconsistentwiththepreliminaryplatsearlierapprovedbythecommission.- -*)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   $359=AEIMQ111111111\  `&Times New Roman j R$      9    _Hadanymemberofthecommissiondecidedthattheminutesdidnotcontainafull,accurate,andcomplete  accountofthecommissionsactionsonFebruary26,2002,heorsheshouldhavesuggestedorrequestedthattheminutes t oftheFebruary26,2002meetingbecorrected.Theentirecommissionthenwouldhavehadanopportunity,onthe 8 recordandinanopenmeeting,todeterminewhetheritsofficialminutesshouldbechanged.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)=i)(|G2$ !.8[dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8[dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8[dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8[dd8     _  [8YXXdd8  @ [$[INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#[[$#Ԉ &   October8,2003Session L XYX[ #[XXY#B&BENTERPRISESOFWILSONCO.,LLC,etal.v. J CITYOFLEBANON,etal.XYX[   ^ @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWilsonCounty  ^ @@No.02111C.K.Smith,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A "  @@TTNo.M200300267_COA_ԄR3CV @ FiledDecember16,_2004_   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealarisesfromadisputebetweentheCityofLebanonPlanningCommissionandrealestate   developersregardingapprovalofaproposedsubdivision.Theplanningcommissionapprovedthe  plansforthefirstphaseofthissubdivisionbutthendisapprovedtheplansforthesecondandthird x phases.ThedevelopersfiledapetitionforwritofcertiorariintheChanceryCourtforWilson d Countyseekingjudicialreviewofthecommissionsactions.Thetrialcourtgrantedthewritand P determinedthattheplanningcommissionactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslybydenyingapprovalof < thefinalsubdivisionplans.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsdecision.#[XXY#XYX[ (x  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  P   #[XY2#XYX.[WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,P.J.,M.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichPatriciaJ. ( CottrellandFrankG.Clement,Jr.,JJ.,joined.  DerrickC.Smith,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellants,CityofLebanon,CityofLebanon  PlanningCommission,PatsyAnderson,RonnieKelly,DavidCook,DonFox,ClaudeWilson,Joe  Holbrook,NickLocke,JanMangrum,JoeHayes,andJohnniePeyton,intheircapacityasmembers t  oftheCommission. `!  JereN.McCulloch,Lebanon,Tennessee,fortheappellees,B&BEnterprisesofWilsonCo.,LLC, 8#" andHalBoned/b/aHalBoneEnterprises. $$t#  OPINION #[XXY #XYX[ %L!% #[XXYc #  XYX[@) I.  '$#'   In1998,JohnHillsetouttodevelopasubdivisioncalled Chaparralcontaining70to75 )$) homesonatractofrealpropertywithintheCityofLebanoninWilsonCounty.TheCityofLebanon *%* PlanningCommissioninitiallydeclinedtoapprovethesubdivision,eventhoughitcompliedwith +&+ allapplicableordinances,becauseofobjectionsbytheneighbors.Mr.Hillsoughtjudicialreview p,',  oftheplanningcommissionsdecision,andtheChanceryCourtforWilsonCountyconcludedthat \-(- theplanningcommissionhadactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyandremandedthematterwith  directionstoapprovethesubdivision.     Inanefforttoaddresstheneighborsconcernsaboutincreasedtraffic,Mr.Hillacquired t additionalpropertyinordertoconstructasecondentrancetothesubdivisiontolessentheburden ` onChaparralDrive.Thereafter,Mr.Hillpresentedarevisedpreliminaryplanforthesubdivision L  containing106lotsonapproximately35acres.Healsosubmittedforapprovalthefinalplanfor 8  PhaseOnecontaining34lotsonapproximately10acres.Theplanningcommissionsstaff $ t recommendedapprovalofbothplanssubjecttominortechnicalcorrections.Theplanning  ` commissiondeferredactionontheseplatsatitsJune26,2001meetingbutreturnedtothematter  L  againonJuly24,2001.Atthatmeeting,theplanningcommissionapprovedtherevisedpreliminary  8  platfortheentiresubdivisionandthefinalplatforPhaseOne subjecttostaffrecommendations. $    Atsomepoint,Mr.HillsoldtheChaparraldevelopmenttoB&BEnterprisesofWilson   County,LLCandHalBone.$ #  1      ׀In2002,B&BEnterprisessubmittedfinalplansforPhasesTwo%T #  2      ׀and   Three& #  3      ׀forapproval.Theplanningcommissionsstaffrecommendedapprovaloftheseplats with   corrections.AtitsJanuary22,2002meeting,theplanningcommissiondeniedtherequestforfinal p approvalofPhasesTwoandThree,apparentlybecauseofobjectionsbyneighboringproperty \ owners. H   Undeterred,B&BEnterprisesagainbroughtChaparralPhasesTwoandThreebacktothe  p planningcommissionatitsFebruary26,2002meeting.Thecommissionsstaffconfirmedthatthe  \ FinalPlansforPhasesTwoandThreeconformedsubstantiallywiththepreliminaryplanapproved H inJuly2001andwithallapplicableordinances.Theremainderofthediscussionfocusedonwhether 4 B&BEnterpriseshadcompliedwithtwosupposed conditionstotheJuly2001approvalofthe   preliminaryplanandonthesurroundingpropertyownersobjectionstoPhasesTwoandThree.#l #  4      ׀The   planningcommissionsstaffstatedthatB&BEnterpriseshadmetthe conditionsdiscussedinJuly  2001.However,variouspropertyownerscontinuedtoobjecttoPhasesTwoandThreebecauseof  incompatibilityoftheproposedconstructionwiththesurroundingneighborhood,'D  #  5      ׀theincreasein  traffic,andthepossiblediminutionofthevalueoftheirproperty.Theplanningcommission  eventuallysuccumbedtothedesiresoftheneighboringpropertyownersanddeclinedtoapprovethe  finalplansofPhasesTwoandThreebya5to3vote.Theplanningcommissiondidnotmake  findingsoffactorconclusionsoflaw,andnoneoftheindividualcommissionersexplainedthebasis t fortheirvoteduringthecommissionsformalconsiderationofthisproject.) #  6       `   FollowingtheplanningcommissionsseconddisapprovaloftheplansforPhasesTwoand 8  Threeofthesubdivision,B&BEnterprisesfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariinthe $ t ChanceryCourtforWilsonCountyassertingthattheplanningcommissionhadfollowedanunlawful  ` procedureandhadactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslywhenitdeclinedtoapprovetheplansforPhases  L  TwoandThreeofthesubdivision.Thetrialcourtgrantedthepetitionand,afterreviewingtherecord  8  oftheproceedingsbeforetheplanningcommission,foundthattheplanningcommissionhadacted $  arbitrarilyandcapriciouslybydecliningtoapprovetheplansforPhasesTwoandThreeofthe   subdivision.Accordingly,thetrialcourtdirectedtheplanningcommissiontoapprovetheplans.   Theplanningcommissionhasappealed.   @) II.  p @hh TheStandardofReview  \    Acommon-lawwritofcertiorariisanextraordinaryjudicialremedy.Robinsonv.Traughber, 4 13S.W.3d361,364(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Fitev.StateBd.ofParoles,925S.W.2d543,544(Tenn.  p Ct.App.1996).Itisnotavailableasamatterofright,Boycev.Williams,215Tenn.704,713-14,  \ 389S.W.2d272,277(1965);Yokleyv.State,632S.W.2d123,127(Tenn.Ct.App.1981),butrather H itisaddressedtothetrialcourtsdiscretion.Blackmonv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,29S.W.3d875, 4 878(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Accordingly,decisionstograntordenyacommon-lawwritofcertiorari   arereviewedusingthefamiliar abuseofdiscretionstandard.Hallv.McLesky,83S.W.3d752,757   (Tenn.Ct.App.2002);Robinsonv.Clement,65S.W.3d632,635(Tenn.Ct.App.2002).    Decisionswhethertograntordenyawritofcertiorariforthepurposeofobtainingaboard  orcommissionsrecordtoreviewdifferfromdecisionswhethertograntrelieffollowingareview l oftherecord.Thescopeofreviewaffordedbyacommonlawwritofcertiorariisextremelylimited. X  Reviewingcourtsmaygrantreliefonlywhentheboardoragencyhasexceededitsjurisdictionor D! actedillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily.Tenn.CodeAnn.278101(2000);Turnerv.Tennessee 0"  Bd.ofParoles,993S.W.2d78,80(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Danielsv.Traughber,984S.W.2d918, #l! 924(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).Theymaynot(1)inquireintotheintrinsiccorrectnessofthelower $X" tribunalsdecision,Arnoldv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,956S.W.2d478,480(Tenn.1997);Powell $D # v.ParoleEligibilityReviewBd.,879S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.Ct.App.1994),(2)reweighthe %0!$ evidence,Wattsv.CivilServ.Bd.forColumbia,606S.W.2d274,277(Tenn.1980);Hoover,Inc. &"% v.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningAppeals,924S.W.2d900,904(Tenn.Ct.App.1996),or(3)substitute  theirjudgmentforthatofthelowertribunal,421Corp.v.MetropolitanGovt,36S.W.3d469,474  (Tenn.Ct.App.2000).    Onceatrialcourtreviewsalocalboardsorcommissionsrecord,itmustmakewritten ` findingsoffactandconclusionsoflawsupportingitsdecisioneithertograntortodenytherequested L  relief.Tenn.CodeAnn.279111(c)(Supp.2004).Thecourtsfindingsoffactmustbebasedon 8  thepreponderanceoftheevidence.Tenn.CodeAnn.279111(d).Accordingly,onappeal,we $ t willreviewthetrialcourtsfindingsoffactusingthefamiliarTenn.R.App.P.13(d)standardof  ` review.WhileTenn.R.App.P.13(d)requiresustodefertothetrialcourtsfactualfindingsaslong  L  astheevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthem,wedonotaccordsimilardeferencetoatrial  8  courtsconclusionsoflaw.Rather,weconducta puredenovoreviewofthetrialcourts $  conclusionsoflaw,SouthernConstructors,Inc.v.LoudonCountyBd.ofEduc.,58S.W.3d706,710   Tenn.2001),andmakeourownindependentconclusionsregardingtheseissues.;XYXXXYJohnsonv.   Johnson,37S.W.3d892,894(Tenn.2001);Nuttv.ChampionInt'lCorp.,980S.W.2d365,367   (Tenn.1998);Hicksv.Cox,978S.W.2d544,547(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).   #XYXX;XYF2#;XYXXXY#XYXX;XY3#@^^( III.  \ @b b  ThePlanningCommissionsRecord  H   Beforeaddressingthesubstantivemeritsofthisappeal,wemustaddresstheplanning  p commissionsunfortunateinattentiontothelegalrequirementsregardingitsdecisionmakingprocess  \ andthepreparationoftherecordofitsproceedingsoncejudicialreviewissought.The H commissionsoversightshavemadeitextremelydifficultforboththetrialcourtandthiscourtto 4 dischargeourobligationtoreviewthedecisionsregardingPhasesTwoandThreeoftheChaparral   subdivision.   @) A.     MunicipalplanningcommissionscreatedunderTenn.CodeAnn.134101(a)(Supp.1994) l playapivotalroleintheorderlyintegrationofacommunityssocialandeconomicdevelopmentwith X  itsphysicalenvironment.SeeFamilyGolfofNashvillev.MetropolitanGovt,964S.W.2d254,257 D! (Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Aspartoftheirplanningfunctions,theyhavetheauthoritytoadopt 0"  regulationsgoverningthedevelopmentofsubdivisionswithintheirterritorialjurisdiction.Tenn. #l! CodeAnn.134303(a)(1999).Infact,nosubdivisioncanbeconstructedwithintheirterritorial $X" jurisdictionwithouttheirapproval.Tenn.CodeAnn.134302(a)(Supp.2004). $D #   Planningcommissions,likeotherboardsandcommissionsoflocalgovernment,are &"% performingaquasijudicialfunctionwhentheyreviewaproposeduseofaparticulartractofreal '#& property.SeeReddochv.Smith,214Tenn.213,222,379S.W.2d641,645(1964);Laffertyv.City (#' ofWinchester,46S.W.3d752,758(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Burson&SimpsonLodgeDevs.,Inc.v. )$( MetropolitanGovt,No.01A019805CH00249,1999WL114257,at*23(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar. |*%) 5,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).Theirfindingsanddeterminationsarepublic h+&* records,Tenn.CodeAnn.134102(1999),andtheyarerequiredtoincludeintheirofficialrecords T,'+ theirreasonsfordisapprovinganyproposedsubdivision.Tenn.CodeAnn.134304(b)(1999).  Requiringplanningcommissionstoincludethereasonsfortheiractionsintheirofficialrecords  promotescompliancewiththelawandprotectsagainstarbitrarydecisions.Italsofacilitatesjudicial  reviewofthecommissionsdecisions.SeeHooverv.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningAppeals,924 t S.W.2dat905. `   Theofficialrecordofagovernmentalboardsorcommissionsactionsiscustomarilyits 8  minutes.Thecourtshaverepeatedlyobservedthatboardsandcommissions,liketheplanning $ t commissioninthiscase,speakoractofficiallyonlythroughtheirminutesandrecordsmadeatduly  ` calledmeetings.SeePress,Inc.v.WashingtonCounty,179Tenn.435,439,167S.W.2d329,330  L  (1943);CarterCountyBd.ofEduc.Commrsv.AmericanFednofTeachers,609S.W.2d512,517  8  (Tenn.Ct.App.1980);Stegallv.CityofChattanooga,16Tenn.App.124,133,66S.W.2d266,270 $  (1932).Accordingly,aboardsorcommissionsminutestakecenterstagewhencourtsareasked   toreviewitsdecisions.+ #  7      ׀     Aboardsorcommissionsminutes,onceapproved,aretheonlycompetentevidenceofits   officialactions.Thereisastrongpresumptionthatofficialminutesarecorrect.Thus,thecourtswill p notconsiderparoleevidencethatcontradictsaboardsorcommissionsminutesandwilldeclineto \ gobehindtheseminutesintheabsenceofashowingoffraudormistake. H   Whenatrialcourtissuesacommonlawwritofcertiorariinacaselikethisone,theboard  p orcommissionmustfiletheentirerecordofitsproceedingstoenablethereviewingcourtto  \ determinewhetherthepetitionerisentitledtorelief.Willisv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,113S.W.3d H 706,712(Tenn.2003).Inthisregard,Tenn.CodeAnn.279109(a)(2000)requiresthat 4  [i]mmediatelyuponthegrantofthewrit,theboardorcommissionshallcausetobemade,certified   andforwardedtosuchcourtacompletetranscriptoftheproceedingsinthecause,containingalso   alltheproofsubmittedbeforetheboardorcommission.Thus,theboardorcommissionwhose  actionsarebeingreviewedmustfileawrittentranscriptofitsproceedings.Lewisv.BedfordBd.of  ZoningAppeals,No.M200300537COAR3CV,2004WL63439,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.13,  2004)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).Taperecordingsoftheboardsorcommissions l proceedingswillnotsuffice.Hayesv.MetropolitanGovt,No.01A019108CH00291,1992WL X  40194,at*10(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.4,1992)perm.app.denied(Tenn.May26,1992). D! @) B.  #l!   Thisappealfocusesontheplanningcommissionsactionsatfourmeetings:June26,2001, $D # July24,2001,January22,2002,andFebruary26,2002.TocomplywithTenn.CodeAnn.272 %0!$ 109(a),thecommissionshouldhavefiledwiththecourttranscriptsofeachoftheseproceedings. &"% Regrettably,thecommissionfailedtodischargeitsstatutoryobligation.Itdidnotfiletranscriptsof '#& theportionsofitsJune26,2001,July24,2001,andJanuary22,2002proceedingsdealingwiththe  Chaparralsubdivision.WhiletherecordcontainstwotranscriptsoftheFebruary26,2002  proceedings,neitherofthesetranscriptshavebeencertifiedbythecommissionoritsstaffas  representingafull,accurate,andcompleteaccountofwhattranspiredduringthosehearings.In t addition,thetranscriptsareinconsistent,andonetranscriptcontainsmanymaterialomissions., #  8       `   Tocompoundtheproblem,theminutesofthefourmeetingsprovidedbytheplanning 8  commissiondonotcomplywithTenn.CodeAnn.134304(b).Thecommissiondeclinedto $ t approvePhasesTwoandThreeoftheChaparralsubdivisionatitsJanuary22,2002andFebruary  ` 26,2002meetings.Whiletheminutesofthesemeetingsrecordthefactthatthecommissiondidnot  L  finallyapprovePhasesTwoandThree,thereasonsforthecommissionsactionareconspicuously  8  absentfromtheminutes. $    OnFebruary27,2002,thedayfollowingthecommissionsmeeting,twocommission   membersattemptedtocurethisoversightbypreparingandsigninga memorandumpurportingto   explainthereasonsforthecommissionsactiononFebruary26,2002.Theyinstructedthe   commissionsstafftoprovidecopiesofthememorandumtothe appropriatepartiesandtoinclude p itinthecommissionsrecord.Thismemorandumisanullity.Despitethefactthatitisincludedin \ theplanningcommissionsfiles,itisnotanauthoritativereflectionofthecommissionsactionsat H theFebruary26,2002meeting.Therefore,itcannotbeusedtosupplementtheminuteswhichare 4 theofficialrecordsofthecommissionsactionsonFebruary26,2002.< #  9        p   Thecommissionhadtheobligationtoprovideboththetrialcourtandthiscourtnotonlywith H officialminutesmeetingtheminimumstatutoryrequirementsbutalsowitharecordofits 4 proceedingsthatcontainedafull,accurate,andcompleteaccountofwhattranspiredwithregardto   theissuesbeingpresentedtothecourtsforreview.Itmust,therefore,beartheresponsibilityand   suffertheconsequencesofitsoversights.Underthefactsofthiscase,itwouldbeunfairtoB&B  Enterprisestogivetheplanningcommissionanopportunitytocorrecttheminutesofitsmeetings  ortopreparetranscriptsofitsproceedings.Theminutesofthemeetingsatissueinthiscasewere  dulyapprovedbytheplanningcommissionandare,therefore,theofficialrecordsofthe l commissionsactionswithregardtotheissuesbeingraisedonappeal.Accordingly,wewillbase X  ourdecisioninthiscaseontherecordthattheplanningcommissionhasprovidedus. D!  $X" @dd) IV.   @OO TheBasisforthePlanningCommissionsDenialofPhasesTwoandThree  @qqoftheChaparralSubdivision     Theplanningcommissionsprincipalargumentonthisappealisthatthetrialcourterredby ` determiningthatthecommissionactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslywhenitdeclinedtoapprove L  PhasesTwoandThreeoftheChaparralSubdivision.Theyinsistthattheirdenialwasappropriate 8  becauseB&BEnterprisesfailedtodemonstratethatithadcompliedwithtwo conditions $ t purportedlyplacedonthefurtherdevelopmentofChaparralatthecommissionsJuly24,2001  ` hearing.ThisargumentisunderminedbytheinescapablefactthattheofficialrecordoftheJuly24,  L  2001meetingcontainsnoindicationthattheplanningcommissionconditioneditsapprovalof  8  PhasesTwoandThreeoftheChaparralsubdivisiononanythingotherthancomplyingwithitsstaffs $  technicalrecommendationsregardingtheplatsthathadbeensubmitted.     TheplanningcommissioninsiststhatitconditioneditsJuly24,2001approvaloftheentire   Chaparralsubdivisiononthedevelopersagreementtoincludeaconservationeasementalongthe   portionsofPhasesTwoandThreeandtoenlargethelotscontiguoustoPonderosaTrail.However, p theminutesoftheJuly24,2001beliethisclaim.TheminutesoftheJuly24,2001meetingstate: \ 8  8`   RickGregorypresentedtherevisedpreliminaryplat,whichwas 4 previouslyapprovedandispresentedagaintobeapprovedasa  p revisedpreliminaryshowingthemajordifferenceofaroadextended.  \ Thefloorwasopenedtoquestionsfromtheaudienceandtheboard. H BillDurhamaskedJereMcCulloch,thespokesmanforChaparral 4 Subdivision,ifthenewroadwouldbeaconstructionentranceand   exitforthedevelopmentoftheproperty.JereMcCullochsanswer   wasaffirmative,andalsostatedthefirstphaseincludedaroadway  fromMapleHillRoadallthewaybackintothepropertytoensurea  timelycompletionoftheproject.JerryMangrumthankedtheBoard  forlookingoutforthebestinterestofthecommunity.After l discussiononmotionbyAnderson,secondedbyCook,allvotingaye, X  preliminaryplatwasapproved.D!` x` x WithregardtoPhaseOneoftheproject,thecommissionsminutesreflectsimplythat [p]latwas #l! presented.Staffreadrecommendations.AfterdiscussiononmotionbyDurham,secondedby $X" Anderson,allvotingaye,platwasapprovedsubjecttostaffrecommendations. $D #   ThewrittenstaffrecommendationsfortheJuly24,2001meeting,bothfortherevised &"% preliminaryplatfortheentireprojectandthefinalplatforPhaseOne,donotmentioneithera '#& conservationeasementorincreasingthesizeofthelotsalongPonderosaTrail.Withregardtothe (#' entiresubdivision,thestaffsrecommendationsarelimitedto: )$( 8  8`   Preliminaryplatneeds:identifyalladjacentpropertyowners(north, h+&* south&east),sizedrainagepipes,sewerpumpstationwillbeinfront T,'+ yards?,correctlocationmap,subdivisionsign?!note.Subjectto  Engineering,CrossConnection,FireDepartmentrequirements.With  corrections, recommendapproval .` x` x WithregardtoPhaseOne,thestaffsrecommendationswereasfollows: d 8  8`   Platneeds:pondreferencenote13isincorrect,showalladjacent <  propertyowners,westdimensions40(lot30)and251.48(lot28)are ( x incorrect,setbacklinestoaccommodatehousesfacingChaparralDr.  d onlots13,18,30&31?Lots16,17,18and23havesamesetback  P  problemsonfinalasonpreliminary. < ` x` x 8  8`   Wasthereagreementthatlots13,18,31wouldfrontChaparral (  Drive?Wasthesetbackonlot30tobemovedwesttoprovidea   greatersetbackfromChaparralDrive?SubjecttoEngineering,Cross   Connection,FireDepartmentrequirements.Withcorrections,    recommendapproval . ` x` x   Approximatelyseventyfiveyearsago,thiscourtconsideredacasestrikinglysimilartothis d one.Init,aneighborofaresidentialsubdivisioninMemphisfiledsuitcomplainingthatthe P developerofthesubdivisionwasnotabidingbyanallegedagreementwiththeplanningcommission < andtheneighboringpropertyownersregardinga25footsetbacklineonaportionofthe (x developmentandthebeautificationofcertainboundariesofthesubdivision.Thedeveloperdenied d thatithadmadeanyagreementsregardingthesetbacklineorbeautification.Afterreviewingthe P minutesoftheplanningcommissionsmeetings,thiscourtsidedwiththedeveloperbecause the < minutesofthemeetingoftheCityPlanningCommissionatwhichtheplatandplanoftheproposed ( subdivisionwasapproved,doesnotmakeanymentionorreferencetoanysuchallegedagreement.  Lenziv.Colberg,13Tenn.App.535,542(1931).    Inthiscase,asinLenziv.Colberg,theofficialminutesoftheplanningcommissionsJuly  24,2001meetingmakenomentionorreferencetoaconservationeasementortoincreasingthesize t ofanyofthelotsinthesubdivision.Accordingly,thereisnoevidencethatB&BEnterprisesorits `  predecessoragreedtomakethesechangesorthatthecommissionconditioneditsapprovalofthe L! Chaparralsubdivisiononthesechangesbeingmade.Withoutevidenceoftheseagreements,wehave 8"  noalternativeotherthantoconcludethattheplanningcommissionactedarbitrarilyandcapriciously $#t! onFebruary26,2002,whenitdeniedfinalapprovalofPhasesTwoandThreeofthesubdivision $`" purportedlyforfailuretocomplywithearlierimposedconditionsonthedevelopmentofthe $L # property.- #  10      ׀ %8!$   &$"%   Remandingtheseproceedingsbacktotheplanningcommissionwouldservenopractical   purposeandwouldcauseadditionalhardshiponB&BEnterprises.Wehaveestablished,asa  matteroflaw,thattherearenolegallyenforceableconditionsonPhasesTwoandThreeregarding  aconservationeasementorincreasingthesizeofcertainlots.Furtherhearingscannotalterthis t conclusion.Inaddition,theplanningcommissionsstaffhasalreadyconcludedthatthefinalplats ` ofPhasesTwoandThreecomplysubstantiallywiththeplatthatwasapprovedonJuly24,2001and L  withallotherapplicablesubdivisionrequirements.Accordingly,becausetheplanningcommission 8  hasnolegalorfactualbasisfordecliningtoapprovePhasesTwoandThree,ithasnooptionother $ t thantofollowthelawandapprovetheseplats.  ` @) V.   8    Weaffirmthejudgmentdirectingtheplanningcommissiontoapprovethefinalplatsof   PhasesTwoandThreeoftheChaparralsubdivisionandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurther   proceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtotheCityofLebanon   PlanningCommission.      `     h   _______________________________ 4    `     h   WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,P.J.,M.S.